“It is distressing to see how Canada is facing the fateful set of choices which are now opening. It seems almost as though many Canadians are bent on not facing the issues which demand an answer [at] a moment when the future basis of the country, perhaps its existence as a country, is in the making or unmaking.”

These words, written in 1967, introduce an essay for Canadian Dimension by one of our most renowned Canadian scholars. In the midst of festivities marking the centenary of Canada’s birth, philosopher Charles Taylor published a stark warning of the dangers posed by the drift of political and economic elites towards ever-deeper economic integration with the US economy. He spelled out in detail the troubling ways this trajectory was reducing Canada’s economy to a satellite status with a parasitic relationship to its powerful neighbour to the south.

Taylor raised the spectre of Canada sliding towards a “51st state” status. His only caveat was that the US would probably be content to leave Canada as a weakened satellite or vassal. America’s political culture seemed to have firmly repudiated those late-19th century imperialist voices arguing for aggressive territorial expansion across the North American continent. Even Taylor’s prophetic text could not imagine a distant and dark future in which a US president would be fanning the ideological flames of America’s “manifest destiny.” That menace is now upon us. Is it now too late?

There have been other moments in history when Canada has faced profound trials. My late dad lived through the Great Depression, served in the Army, worked in construction after his service, and voted CCF/NDP throughout his life. Unlike Charles, Elmer never finished high school but did have an uncanny common-sense ability to improvise, innovate and deal with major construction problems he faced. Whenever we talked politics and I would lament our dire economic dependency, he would always point to Canada’s response to global crisis during the 1940s. On the heels of the Great Depression, with a stagnant economy and massive unemployment, Canada’s economy underwent a massive expansion as it mobilized to grapple with the crisis of the Second World War. Factories were built from scratch or retooled to produce ships, planes and munitions. With incredible speed Canada geared up to mass-produce a wide range of products including technologically complex weapons like the Lancaster bombers, destroyers and minesweepers. Creatively collaborating with the private sector, federal and provincial governments played a critical role in mobilizing this massive effort. Over that brief five-year period, Canada’s gross national product more than doubled with dramatic increases in employment and substantial growth in household incomes. In short, he assured me, with enough work, dedication and imagination anything can be done.

That little history lesson underscored the capacity of the military mobilization to serve as a transformative public sector instrument. There was also an interesting political footnote: during the federal election in 1945, Canada’s mobilized military threw significant support to the CCF. In fact, in the 1945 federal election, the CCF won 32 percent of the military vote, finishing ahead of the Conservatives and only three percent behind the Liberals. Unfortunately that support was not reciprocated. Over the past 60 years left-leaning folk have largely turned a blind eye to the dismal decay of Canada’s distinguished military heritage and typically cast a jaundiced eye towards any talk of significant reinvestment. Perhaps a time for change has come. At this moment in history Canadian governments need to respond with the same energy and urgency that mobilized efforts to make our economy battle-ready in the face of war.

Is reinvestment in our military part of that battle-ready response? Canada continues to drag its feet in the face of ever-mounting international pressure to make major investments in the military an urgent priority. But could military investment and mobilization be part of a larger integrated national project to rebuild and redirect our economy while dealing with immediate and pressing issues such as rebuilding military capacity and recruitment, border security, global warming, and the housing crisis? Could we envisage a major initiative designed to recruit, rapidly train and equip significant sectors of our military in an array of engineering, construction and critical trade skills needed in our economy? This could address a number of critical areas of concern: boosting capacity to rapidly deal with major military infrastructure projects, enhancing the military’s capabilities in disaster response, providing greater capacity to contribute to major military as well as national infrastructure projects, contributing to major recovery projects that are becoming more pervasive with climate change, fostering stronger civil-military relations, and the military’s role in supporting major national and regional priorities.

This initiative would focus on select sectors of the military such as an expanded engineering, logistics and support corps, as well as an option for specialized training programs for reserve forces or a national guard. Focusing on specific sectors rather than the entire military, allows the core operational readiness of the armed forces to be maintained. Military roles and functions that require intense and specialized training would continue without disruption.

This investment would also directly address military needs, morale and recruitment. In addition to other military infrastructure needs, one immediate goal would be construction of houses for military personnel, both in service and veterans. The Canadian military is currently grappling with a serious housing crisis. Utilizing a trained military labour for major housing projects could reduce costs, making housing more affordable both for existing military personnel and veterans. Completing a term of service could also qualify soldiers for ownership of military-built homes providing a major incentive for recruitment. In addition, the prospect of post-military careers equipped with trade and business skills would offer another recruitment incentive.

This program could also be expanded to include the construction of housing units to address housing emergencies for other underserved communities, such as low-income families and Indigenous populations. The initiative can incorporate innovative and sustainable building practices, promoting economical, energy-efficient and environmentally friendly housing solutions. It would likely generate scalable and cost-effective solutions to the national housing crisis as well as other major infrastructure projects.

Some might contend that such an initiative would represent a dramatic break with established military ethos and practice. On the contrary, it actually represents a retrieval of deeper veins of military tradition. Historically, construction and engineering capacities were a primary focus for the military profession. “Civil engineering” (i.e. non-military) only emerges as a distinct profession during the modern era. Military historian Peter Purton concludes that the successes of past militaries were due in large part to the ingenuity and “achievements of ordinary people who acquired engineering skills and … put them into practice.” Practical and professional skills in engineering and infrastructure construction were primarily developed in the military sphere but penetrated into the civilian sector. These same “ordinary” folk also played critical roles in reshaping their civilian economies in building homes, bridges, roads, canals, and other major projects.

Rebooting this tradition in the 21st century would require a greater array of diverse skills and technologies in training a military capable of quickly adapting to ever-changing challenges both domestic and international. The success of this initiative will depend on effective implementation. Specialized military units could be formed to reflect Canada’s regional and linguistic diversity as well as its Indigenous foundations. Collaboration and partnerships with government agencies, existing trade schools, programs, and construction industry experts could leverage resources, expertise and funding. Hands-on rapid training programs would be developed in collaboration with existing trade schools, trade programs and construction industry experts, ensuring service members receive accredited certifications that would be valuable in the civilian job market. In addition to construction skills, in later stages of military service the program could also include training in trade and business skills such as project management, entrepreneurship, and financial planning. This training would prepare military personnel for successful careers in the housing construction sector or related businesses after their military service, thereby contributing to local economies and construction needs.

Taylor’s 1967 battle-cry went unheeded. Today we find ourselves in even more perilous circumstances. Canada’s nation-building moments have often occurred in times of major crisis. An innovative reinvestment in our military could help to address immediate geopolitical pressures, increase recruitment and morale, provide long-term benefits for service members, and expand military capacity. It could also provide short- and long-term benefits for the wider Canadian economy and society and move our military towards the vanguard of Canada’s nation-building work in this turbulent time.

Daniel Cere is Associate Professor of Religion, Ethics and Public Policy in the School of Religious Studies at McGill University.