Investing in people and in social goods: smart and moral economics for PM Carney's "major projects" push

The first ministers have called for "dual use" projects in the North and Arctic. Why should this notion not be put at the centre of the discussion of all nation-building and major projects?

Upper image: An RCAF Hercules aircraft on the tarmac of Red Lake Municipal Airport in Manitoba. The military’s role in civilian evacuations is just the most immediate example of how “dual/multiple use” could be at the centre of major projects and strategic investment. Lower image: A reminder that the world and Canada have been on fire for some time now and will continue to be as one major consequence of an ever-accelerating climate crisis. This photo is from CBC news coverage not right now and not in Manitoba, but last year (May 2023) in Alberta — a reminder that supercharging infrastructure capable of better preparedness and constant response to climate disasters (here and abroad) has to be high up amongst our national priorities.

The prime minister and premiers met yesterday in Saskatoon and issued a “First Ministers’ statement on building a strong Canadian economy and advancing major projects.” We encourage you to read it, while paying special attention to this paragraph on dual-use infrastructure:

First Ministers also discussed needed investments in dual-use infrastructure in Northern and Arctic communities that will address Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and security goals, meet local community needs, advance national energy independence, and unlock the North’s economic potential. Indigenous equity and participation will be pivotal to the success of these projects. Premiers acknowledged the federal commitment to move quickly to improve Canada’s defence capabilities and meet international spending targets.

Ensuring that major initiatives are achieving multiple objectives is a good idea generally and particularly when Canada’s governments are identifying a few major “nation-building” projects.

Recall Monday’s Pledge post, “Delivering on ambition in our fragile federation,” where industrial strategy focused on public value was discussed. The central example was how our national school food program not only contributes to social justice and well-being but also can and must be designed to contribute to our economic and climate objectives through fostering the scaling up of an ever more sustainable agri-food sector.

Perhaps nowhere is the notion of dual use or multiple purpose more relevant than with respect to the pressure to ramp up our military spending. As Canada has hovered far below the NATO target of 2% of GDP for years, a consensus has emerged that we have been free-riding to a significant extent and that our international reputation (and ability to turn to allies for assistance) has been negatively affected. Indeed, we have entered into a period when we want to concentrate on major projects that make sense on our own terms but frenzied demands for extreme levels of military spending are emerging. We have an unhinged US president pushing Canada to do a dance with him around a demanded $60-80 billion in Canadian contribution to a Golden Dome fairy tale and a chattering military-policy class that has somehow come up with a nice round number of 5% of GDP as the new target for NATO spending. Jon Shell on LinkedIn has expressed a mounting frustration with the direction we (the West, including Canada) are heading in this headlong, single-minded rush:

To understand the depth of Western moral collapse, look no further than USAID and the 5% defense spending target.

As Elon Musk gutted the 40B budget of USAID, killing children and breaking commitments around the world, news organizations and leaders around the world expressed their shock and outrage.

Now, many "outraged" countries are talking about raising defense spending to 5% of GDP while many are *cutting* their own aid spend. Being mad at Elon is easy - everyone is doing it! But maybe try looking in the mirror.

The total defense spend by all non-US NATO countries in 2024 was $430B USD. If just the largest 10 non-US NATO countries reached 5% of GDP, that would increase defense spending to 1.3 trillion USD. And no one is batting an eyelash.

Let's make this super clear: Western countries could have stepped in and replaced US support in poor countries around the world with about 40B. But that's way too much to save kids and prevent disease. Instead, we're going increase defense spending by about a trillion dollars. Cool, cool. It must be because we need to match China and Russia, right?

Oh, wait. China and Russia collectively spend about 400B on defense. We're casually going to triple that plus more, not even accounting for US spend (already over $750M, but would go over 1.3T at 5%).

There is no rational explanation for any of this. 5% just kind of popped up, and now, suddenly, despite the affordability crisis, rampant deficits and crumbling social infrastructure, everyone's on board. Why? And if we can do that so easily, why isn't the easiest decision of all time to replace American aid and keep helping our fellow humans who need it most?

There seem to be a bunch of "pragmatists" out there recommending incredibly impractical things despite very basic math. So, not only has the West lost any sense of what's right, but it also seems to have lost any sense of reason.

I honestly have no idea what we're doing anymore.

Assuming we bat away the mooted 5% target, even the .5% to bring us to the 2% target is a huge investment and should be designed to achieve multiple objectives. We should move towards the target in a way that enhances our industrial capacity and serves other public purposes. ‘Civilian’ need for rescue and evacuation capacity, coastguard and fisheries protection, firefighting, and so on are just some examples of capacity that can be designed as dual civil and military.

Do you agree that the projects selected — and increases in military spending — should serve multiple objectives, ideally economic, social and environmental?