Focus our study

Yeah those questions are good especially for first questions. At first I thought Mike's might be like pushing people towards saying agree by adding that they play an important role in the economy but then when I thought about how else to phrase it I kinda realized it is probably most effective the way it is worded because if we take that part out then they may not understand the point of the question. So in summation I think both these questions are just superb.

So now are we gunna ask questions about the amount of money spent on the war in Afghanistan? Like how much money do you feel is acceptable to spend on our commitment in Afghanistan and then have like interval amounts? or is that dumb. Or should we put like:

In terms of the amount of money the Canadian government is spending on the mission in Afghanistan do you feel the government is spending: 1. Not enough 2. About the right amount 3. Too Much 4. Don't know

and then we could compare from those who felt we should be there or not what they thought about the money being spent? or should we ask it in a different way and be like: What percentage of your tax dollars do you feel should be allocated to the mission in Afghanistan?

or are we not gunna ask questions about money at all??

Also I was thinking are we gunna ask questions like: To what extent do you feel the Canadian commitment in Afghanistan is important for humanitarian purposes or national defense: 1. Important only for defense 2. Important for both defense and humanitarian purposes 3. Important for humanitarian purposes only.

Or something like that I guess thats an awkward way to put it and maybe humanitarian isn't the best word but do you see where im going with this? and do we want to go this way with this?

Also are we supposed to have some point to this or just asking questions about defense? like what exactly are we trying to find out, just peoples general perception of Afghanistan??

I would include the amount of money the Canadian government spends on defense as a % of all other expenses. It is too tough to expect Canadians to all know the amount spent - an overwhelming amount of #4. State, this is the % spent on military expenditures, defense, etc. and then say is this proportionally an acceptable % for the defense of our country?

What do you think?

According to this: http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-countries-spend-their-money/

Canada spends 6.3% of its budget on Military, 12.7% on Education, and 17.8% on Health. Can you reframe the question with this in mind perhaps?

Maybe we could pose a question comparatively....something comparing the numbers of other countries like the UK, US, France, Australia..comparing budgets for defense and then asking if people would choose to increase, decrease or stay the same. This kind of going out on a limb but a lot of Canadians might be opposed to defense spending when there are other issues on the table, but comparing the same issue among different countries with international reputations it might be interesting to see what people actually say.

Thats a great idea Julia. It could go:

Below are figures on military spending as part of government expenditure:

19.3% US 18.7% Russia 7.1% Australia 6.3% Canada 6.3% UK 5.4% France

Canada should increase or decrease its defence budget (next year, etc.) ?

1. Increase significantly 2. Increase 3. No Change 4. Decrease 5. Decrease significantly

What do you think?

By those stats it looks like Canada spends roughly the same amount as other western nations with similarly sized armed forces and populations. The exceptions being Russia and the US which were/are superpowers. The other problem is that each country has different and specific needs for defence. ex) Canada has the longest coast line to protect versus the UK or France which have very little. ex) Canada is the second largest country in the world. etc. . . I think there are too many variables that affect how much we spend in relation to other countries. Rather than have the question based on the expenditures of other nations perhaps have it based on perceived threat? like Russian and Danish 'expansion' in the arctic or supporting our NATO allies. I think the question works but not merely through examining other nations expenditures.

I think in looking at that question by Nadeem on from a relative point of view in terms of other countries, it may skew the responses of our surveyors. For example, people may look at those stats and say well US spends significantly more than we do...so we must increase our spending on defense. In my opinion, looking at this question from a relativist perspective may skew the answers that people may give.

The question could potentially be worded:

Canada currently spends this much ____ as a percentage of GDP on defense. Do you think Canada should increase or decrease its defense spending next year.

1. Increase significantly 2. Increase 3. No Change 4. Decrease 5. Decrease significantly

maybe asking it in those terms would be better...

thoughts?

Yeah I get where Jordan is coming from but Im worried if we don't put other percentages up there then how will people have an idea of our spending compared to others you know? but at the same I understand what you mean about skewing results but its not as if we are making a normative statement we are showing facts if facts skew someone's opinion that okay right? Or maybe not I dunno??

People won't know about the other countries, and can't assess their own knowledge comparatively. I think that Ian's comment about us having unique defence concerns is valid - yet - other countries have dynamic security environments as well. The UK is responsible for its overseas territories, Iraq, and UN commitments - as is France and other European countries. Australia's size and location require much funding. Canada's situation is offset by the US military budget, one of the largest in the world. We do have a more difficult country that is geographically complicated to defend. We do however, have the world's sole military hegemon covering a lot of our load.

Personally, I see the other GDP's (and the fact certain countries there are fighting alongside Canadians in Afghanistan) make it a valid addition to the question.

I agree. So are there any objections to the two questions Nadeem put up on the board cause Im good with them.

Personally, I do not mind if the question is phrased with other countries and how much they spend on their defense as a percentage of GDP, if you and Jacqueline like it I'm good with it. Do you think it might be more effective, however, instead of asking our defense spending and having the stats of other countries, we should instead put up Canada's budget for defense relative to what else we spend our money on in our budget. For example, instead of saying this country spends 5.4% and this country 18.4% for example, we could say that Canada spends 6.3% of its budget on the military and 5.0% on education, 15% on the economic stimulus package etc....

I think this might be more effective because although Canada spends 6.3 on defense in our budget, it should be relative to what else we spend in our budget despite what other countries might spend on theirs. Asking Canadians if we should spend more on defense by giving the numbers of other countries should not be based on how much other countries spend, it should be relative to what Canada is currently spending in our budget.

Looking at the question Nadeem posed (which I actually quite like), asks if Canada should spend more by looking at other countries figures, and asking respondents if on this information should Canada increase its military budget. But it would be more effective to give the figures of what Canada currently spends on its budget to see if respondents actually value increasing the military budget. Sure, Canadians may feel it is good or not good to increase military spending, but the way the question is phrased does not get at the heart of what the question is trying to ask. It may not be politically feasible to increase our budget on military because the population values more money being put into the economic stimulus package or education or even health care

To truly see if Canadians want to increase the budget for the military we need to ask it in a way that is relative to the other things we spend money on, not how much other counties spend on theirs. If we ask how much we should spend on the military relative to education, health care etc... we can see if the population truly wants to increase the money spent on the budget, and if they truly value doing so.

But if there is a majority on the original question, I have little problems with it.

According to Prof Owen, this survey will be asked to respondents of BC. Please also note that Canada is not a super-power or great-power like the other countries that you have mentioned, Canada is a middle-power, thus, it is only logical that Canada's military spending is a lot lesser than other countries like US, France, UK (Super-powers and Great-Powers, plus they are all permanent members of the UN with veto power). It would be unfair to compare Canada's military spending with the rest of the above-mentioned countries. Perhaps like what Jordan mentioned, it would be better to ask respondents if Canada's should increase its defense budget relative to the other priorities of Canadians like education, health care, welfare, etc or as a percentage of its overall GDP.

Now that I see the way that this question has played out I do understand the concerns with regards to all the variables that go into the percentages of government expenditure percountry, and agree that it would be dangerous to compare just those numbers without taking any other variables into consideration. Using the GDP and percentage of GDP for defense among other countries could potentially be more credible than the previous question, but could still face similar challenges.I like the question and am curious as to how people's answers would perhaps differ from their overall survey if we, say, asked them that question last, but there are a lot of problems with it.

Also, with regards to Bala and Jordan suggesting we use our GDP percentages of health care, education, welfare e.t.c. I can tell you right now that most of the Canadian population, if they see comparatively how much of the GDP is sucked up by "defense" they will advocate for LESS defense spending. This is just a theory but people in Canada are much more welfare/education/healthcare minded over defense and any extra dollars they can put towards something they will see directly and positively effect their country will most likely get the brunt of their support, so I would say that asking a quesiton like this would not replace the question above in a sense that you would most likely get differing responses, but it is a valid question in itself and could very well be used to solidify where Canadian's stand with Defense spending.

Comparing education and/or health is a difficult task. America spends a lot on healthcare - more than we do in terms of %'s but have a large portion of their population that remains uncovered.

Bala, I don't think that you can normatively assert that Canada is a middle power. Today Canada (not France, UK, etc.) operate in some of the most strategically important regions of Afghanistan like Helmand and Kandahar. Canada is a middle power in some sense - but it is within the NATO framework which is becoming more regionally polarized. It is expected, by NATO analyists that the EU will homogenize its defence policy through the union. America will act accordingly, and Canada could as well.

I believe that the GDP's provide a spectrum of %'s. Some resemble Canada's. Some don't. It paints a basic picture for the survey respondent - to which they can assert whether they see more black or white - whether Canada needs more or less, according to them.

I feel like the question asked in both the way Jordan was thinking and the was Nadeem was thinking could both be effective they are just looking at different things and will give us different information so we should decide what kind of information we are looking to generate.

Another interesting thing, which may be better if we could have more questions, would be to ask both questions and then see what kind of contradictions arose from that data because I think there would be a lot. I think people might say more when they see other percentages and then when they think of it in terms of other expeditures they might think less and it would be interesting. But with only room for five questions I dont know if thats something we want to do.

I also agree that when showing the percents we should not worry about what non-empirical classification we can put Canada in, like "middle" or "super" or "great" power. Just show some facts about GDP percents, people have a rough idea of the physical size of countries and they can decide for themselves weather they feel Canada should spend more or less it doesn't really matter weather or not Canada is different then the countries mentioned.

Either way I think at least one of these questions should be one of the final 5 and I am leening towards percents because I feel the other question will say more about the other things people value and less about defense. But I could probably be persuaded either way.

"I also agree that when showing the percents we should not worry about what non-empirical classification we can put Canada in, like "middle" or "super" or "great" power. Just show some facts about GDP percents, people have a rough idea of the physical size of countries and they can decide for themselves weather they feel Canada should spend more or less it doesn't really matter weather or not Canada is different then the countries mentioned."

You make a really good point here. Jordan's method is a very valid one. I simply believed that we should inform and then question. Rather than question and not assume knowledge. People might very well know rough GDP figures themselves, especially if you did this at a large Canadian university. But I like Jackie's point that we can't classify Canada as a lowly - middle power. That is a stereotype. It's surely going to change in 50-100 years, no?

It's not a stereotype, it's factual information. I am not saying we are a lowly middle-power or anything that undermines Canada's contribution to peace-keeping, in fact it was as a result of Lester Pearson that the term peace-keeping came into prominence during the Suez crisis and Pearson even received a Nobel Peace Price for his efforts. But we have to face reality, do we have the resources to compete with the rest of the countries you have mentioned? Even though we are involved in the strategic areas of Afghanistan, more than 80% of the costs for the peace-keeping mission in Afghanistan is paid for by the US. This begs the question, even if we have the resources, are we willing to contribute? For example, Harper's plan to assert Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic resulted in the Canada First Defense Plan - extremely impressive plans but there is not enough investment that is being made till now to strongly assert our sovereignty in the Arctic due to a lack of resources and funds. Just think about this for a second, if Canada is truly a up and coming country like you have mentioned over the next 50-100 years, we would not have embarrassingly lost out to Portugal in the UN vote for a seat on the UN Security Council last November. I think ideally we need to focus on what we can expect in the near future and not in the next 50-100 years when we don't even know what is going to happen tomorrow.

I guess im just saying its irrelevant Canada's position in relation to those other countries, all we want is people's opinion after giving them a little information about other countries spending, then they can form their opinion we don't need to worry about their opinion being swayed by the percents if their factual they will decide weather more or less is appropriate thats all we need to know,

I am okay with the formulation of the question either way. My concern is not about whether the opinions will be swayed by showing what the other percentages of countries are, it is about people saying they should increase or decrease defense spending, when it may not be politically feasible. Sure, showing them %, could inform their opinion about how much they should spend and get some interest as to whether they want to spend more or less on defense, and if thats all we want to accomplish with the question i am fine with it. I just thought we should take the question a bit further, seeing whether or not they want to increase defense relative to what else we spend on. Then we get at the heart of whether they are truly interested in increasing spending or not because they value other things in the budget. I just think with a reformulation of the question, we could ask both if they interested in defense spending, and if they value it relative to what else we spend money on, but they first question just looks at whether people are want to in increase or decrease defense spending, not whether or not they value it based on what else we spend on. But if i'm outweighed by the majority, I don't have any other concerns than this.

I understand what Jordan is saying. I think we can fix this by either asking the question with the percentages but prefacing it with "if it were possible, would you prefer it if..." sort of thing. We could also compare it to other factors that people value in the budget, as Jordan suggested. I'm fine with either or, but do see Jordan's point.