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?
Pledge reader Tom Dougherty emailed these thoughts on Monday's post. We will also post it there in the comment section, but it is also highly relevant for today. We are -- with his permission -- sharing it here online:
I am a retired environmental scientist. I did my field work in Canada's boreal forests.
For decades, I have feared that the unintended effects of industrial civilization would destabilize our forests, climate, air, soils, waters, biodiversity, and human health.
I am appalled that our various levels of government are doing so little to prevent climate change and destruction of our ecosystems. Nowhere is the seriousness of the consequences worse than in Canada's boreal forests.
As you know, those forests are largely populated by Indigenous people.
This summer, as in so many recent years, those forests are aflame. Thousands of people are being forced to flee for their lives. The wild animals are forced to remain and suffer.
While governments may temporarily rescue people, their lives will be forever changed by their experiences, especially when they lose their communities and the ecosystems on which they depend. For wildlife, this situation is an immeasurable disaster.
Our governments need to do much more to protect the homelands of the Indigenous peoples of Canada in perpetuity. It is no longer acceptable to claim that expansion of industrial activity and economic growth is required. Quite simply, this is discrimination against the Indigenous people of the boreal forest. They are being sacrificed on the altar of wealth.
I am saddened by the on-going immoral behaviour of the majority of Canadians, especially leaders of our governments and major corporations. I hope you will expose and condemn their attitudes and actions.
We now need no more new mines, pipelines, forestry operations. We need immediate reductions in pollution, especially greenhouse gas emissions, both here and in all other nations.
Absolutely. One industry came to mind - aircraft manufacturing. We could use many, many more water bombers but our Victoria BC manufacturer is maxed out and all forthcoming inventory is spoken for by other nations.
Invest in them. They are great jobs. We have the aluminum for the air frames, the largest component. Double their capacity so we can load up on them and still maintain strong exports.
It's insanity talking about national pipelines, more fossil fuel production and increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere when we can draw a direct link to the forrest fires and increased costs of climate change. The costs of dealing with the costs associated with global warming are easily going to outstrip the value of the oil sold. We need a national clean energy grid based on green energy, not pipelines.
We can blame the politicians like Danielle Smith who are slobbering at the bit in anticipation of new pipeline projects, but what is wrong with the citizens who are supporting them and driving these policies?!
Don Gillmor on his new book ‘On Oil’ and how corporate welfare holds back the energy transition. A Tyee Q&A.
2.) “Oil’s Deep State” Kevin Taft, Lorimer 2017: How the petroleum industry undermines democracy and stops action on global warming -in Alberta, and in Ottawa.
You're making an excellent point in this increasingly complex world. Most infrastructure investment serves more than one purpose and should. For example, investing in the rail line to/from Churchill MB would could better serve the communities north as well as transporting freight to port. Churchill is also the polar bear tourist capital. (One example amongst many)
A Pledge reader has commented by email and given permission to post here: "I think we need to seriously challenge the need for military spending in all directions. The way we are going is only going to lead to war. Corinne Benson"
In response to your question, I DO agree. Dual purpose, all the way, and we will need it. And have we not recently seen the danger of pouring money into —say— fighter jets, when inexpensive drones coupled with ingenuity and creative thinking seem to be turning the tide in the immoral attempt by Russia to take over Ukraine. Surely this will force us to think more creatively, or risk creating another Maginot Line. We have a war at hand, against fire. I love David Regehr’s note, about using up all,that excess ( right now) aluminum on water bombers.
There are different perspectives on the Russia/Ukraine situation but mostly all war needs to be stopped. All wars are essentially bankers wars. They serve no useful purpose for other than oligarchic interests.
I would suggest multiple use (not just dual use). I'm not hearing anything about food actual human security (not to be confused with military spending, but comprised of health, education, food security). It is very upsetting that PM Carney and the Premiers are doubling down on neoliberal ideas to "nation build" when what we need is to include Canadians, as people, in the equation. An economy does not equate to a nation when it excludes the needs of actual people. In addition, are these "nation-building" projects considering ownership? Will Canada own and benefit from the new infrastructure or will profits go offshore, as has historically been the case?
I’ve read your last email, and I must say I agree with your exposé. To make Canada great again and independent of the U.S. market, we must take a firm stand — at least until TACO disappears from our radar. Only then should we consider reopening our borders, and even then, things will never return to what they were over the last hundred years.
I wonder: why aren’t we imposing tariffs on U.S. ships passing through the Saint Lawrence Seaway — if only to send a message?
And what about closing our airspace to U.S. Super fortresses, constantly flying overhead with A-bombs on board and leaving behind visible chem trails as a reminder of their presence? This so-called "deterrent" is part of the U.S. Air Force's NATO strategy, just in case Putin — their unpredictable friend — decides to launch a nuclear strike. He just might, to prove he’s stronger than TACO.
Closing our airspace would assert Canadian sovereignty and send a clear signal: we are tolerant, but not naïve. We’ve already closed the Alaska border — why not restrict their military flights too? Yes, we signed the NATO agreement, but knowing TACO’s childish pride, he might just keel over during one of his morning tantrums.
Just an opinion. The 5 percent for defense spending does seem ludicrous, especially when it comes at the expense of programs that help all Canadians have a protected environment, democratic freedoms, and a decent standard of living. I keep wondering who gets to decide what the definition of nation-building is? To retain self-sufficiency in food production is highest priority for this retired farmer. In many ways that is also defense, to have a nation that has no impediments to feeding all of its peoples, that no other nation can obstruct. Clearly we need to have projects that use more of our steel and aluminium at home. I like the water bomber production idea. But what is nagging at me us how do we extricate ourselves from the rather deep military integration with the States when they turn full fascist? How do we keep the new over the horizon system we are going to purchase from Australia from landing in American hands and benefitting them more than us? I know I am jumping around here. There seems to be no new ideas under the sun to help with homelessness. Finland had done a stellar job but no one wants to try something similar. If homeless people could join environmental projects or be trained in urban agriculture, which included housing, would that be considered dual purpose? Just brainstorming . In a roundabout way I am saying that we keep problem issues in silos and have trouble looking across multiple needs and seeing where there could be innovative solutions that address more than one problem. I used to think human creativity set free without political constraints could come up with solutions for just about anything in the wider world. Put the right brains together and the rewards could be immense. But I am now thinking we are breeding creativity right out of the human race. But relying on AI fully is still questionable. My son uses AI in his job. He says it is still alarming the amount and degree of mistakes that it makes. As in it has to still be triple checked for accuracy. He is surprised by that. My concern is the number of people in leadership positions that may be willing to allow AI to take over projects but not build in double checking that it is not going off in some odd direction. Or being used in some weird way that does not apply. Like when Trump tariffed the penguins on that island. Like nobody could just look it up before making an announcement of that size? Obviously I need some rest and to marshal my thoughts.
No need for 5%. That will just escalate war mongering which leads to untold suffering. Let us care for each other both here at home in Canada and across the world.
We need to move from either-or to both-and thinking. This is how we prioritize. Both economic and humanitarian , or defence and indigenous rights. Once you wrap your head around this, it’s not so hard to grok!
We have neglected military spending for too long and look at what’s going on with China and Russia . We are very ill prepared to face any military threats. Investment in the military is imperative. As for the number$, ???
What threats? China has offered to trade and build infrastructure with Canada. And they accepted our ‘no thanks’. Unlike US threatening to annex 🇨🇦 to take whatever it wants. Russia has been patient for years asking for an EU security architecture -Peace- since 2007 Munich Conference. (See on YouTube Putin’s address) The Allies(US led) have not included Russians’ security in their plans and coups expansion of NATO - which they promised would not happen. China and Russia have been clear and consistent in their commitments and communications. Patient too, with bullying and bullies. NATO has been liars consistently ignoring anything, agreements, other than their warmongering hegemony. NATO countries have been liars at home too. Check out Jeffrey Sachs on YouTube for reality check beyond Western propaganda.
Russia's whole game is sphere of influence and their peaceful approaches are merely diktats to disrupt. No one has any interest in invading Russia. The Russian's only want the freedom to carry out their Soviet desires, a la Ukraine, whom they accuse of being a Nazi regime. You can bet if they succeed with Ukraine the Baltic states are next.
Hi again David, Above is link that supports your comment, I think. Olivia Lazard is known for her TED talks, excellent work. One thing, she is funded by a think tank that is funded by the US government. I find administrations often don’t follow policy recommended by this think tank, Carnegie, but it uses them to propagate their public image as democratic, just, morally exceptional preachers of chritisn virtue - hiding the very agenda they accuse Russia and China have done - only Russia and China do things better and cheaper- with more intentions to lift their people’s standard of living, education.
Have you looked at what Russia has asked for? Are you aware they had come to an agreement with Zelensky, to maintain Ukraine neutrality, and the West via Boris Johnson pulled out. Pulled out of peace. US does not do diplomacy. Are you aware that Ukraine has had a coup led by the US 2014, which got rid of aUkraine’s democratically elected government. There are some nazis in the Ukraine, they have been rebranded by US, who is happy to arm them.There are also first language Russian speaking Ukrainians who were not treated as equals in Ukraine. There are many reliable authoritative sources discussing Ukraine’s situation. On Substack- Glen Diesen and Pascal Lottaz’s Neutrality Studies have interviews and analysis. YouTube interview of Patrick Baab a journalist from Germany has frontline reporting as well. Please provide resources for your opinion David. I believe we all want out opinions to be grounded in reality and guided by caring.
I may be a victim of TLDR, but by cutting foreign aid, the need for defense budgets may indeed increase. Impoverished countries with an angry populace are an increased risk of conflict. Foreign aid, in addition to being "the right thing to do", is also a vaccination against future conflicts.
Pledge reader Tom Dougherty emailed these thoughts on Monday's post. We will also post it there in the comment section, but it is also highly relevant for today. We are -- with his permission -- sharing it here online:
I am a retired environmental scientist. I did my field work in Canada's boreal forests.
For decades, I have feared that the unintended effects of industrial civilization would destabilize our forests, climate, air, soils, waters, biodiversity, and human health.
I am appalled that our various levels of government are doing so little to prevent climate change and destruction of our ecosystems. Nowhere is the seriousness of the consequences worse than in Canada's boreal forests.
As you know, those forests are largely populated by Indigenous people.
This summer, as in so many recent years, those forests are aflame. Thousands of people are being forced to flee for their lives. The wild animals are forced to remain and suffer.
While governments may temporarily rescue people, their lives will be forever changed by their experiences, especially when they lose their communities and the ecosystems on which they depend. For wildlife, this situation is an immeasurable disaster.
Our governments need to do much more to protect the homelands of the Indigenous peoples of Canada in perpetuity. It is no longer acceptable to claim that expansion of industrial activity and economic growth is required. Quite simply, this is discrimination against the Indigenous people of the boreal forest. They are being sacrificed on the altar of wealth.
I am saddened by the on-going immoral behaviour of the majority of Canadians, especially leaders of our governments and major corporations. I hope you will expose and condemn their attitudes and actions.
We now need no more new mines, pipelines, forestry operations. We need immediate reductions in pollution, especially greenhouse gas emissions, both here and in all other nations.
Tom Dougherty
Ottawa
I agree, Tom Dougherty.
Mr. Dougherty, May I please share your words on my social media platform, with proper acreditation, of course?
Absolutely. One industry came to mind - aircraft manufacturing. We could use many, many more water bombers but our Victoria BC manufacturer is maxed out and all forthcoming inventory is spoken for by other nations.
Invest in them. They are great jobs. We have the aluminum for the air frames, the largest component. Double their capacity so we can load up on them and still maintain strong exports.
Just a thought.
It's insanity talking about national pipelines, more fossil fuel production and increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere when we can draw a direct link to the forrest fires and increased costs of climate change. The costs of dealing with the costs associated with global warming are easily going to outstrip the value of the oil sold. We need a national clean energy grid based on green energy, not pipelines.
We can blame the politicians like Danielle Smith who are slobbering at the bit in anticipation of new pipeline projects, but what is wrong with the citizens who are supporting them and driving these policies?!
1.) Danielle Smith ‘Represents the Oilsands More Than the People of Alberta’, Hosgood AF, The Tyee.ca 2025 May 16: https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2025/05/16/Don-Gillmor-Interview/
Don Gillmor on his new book ‘On Oil’ and how corporate welfare holds back the energy transition. A Tyee Q&A.
2.) “Oil’s Deep State” Kevin Taft, Lorimer 2017: How the petroleum industry undermines democracy and stops action on global warming -in Alberta, and in Ottawa.
You're making an excellent point in this increasingly complex world. Most infrastructure investment serves more than one purpose and should. For example, investing in the rail line to/from Churchill MB would could better serve the communities north as well as transporting freight to port. Churchill is also the polar bear tourist capital. (One example amongst many)
A Pledge reader has commented by email and given permission to post here: "I think we need to seriously challenge the need for military spending in all directions. The way we are going is only going to lead to war. Corinne Benson"
I agree that dual purpose investments makes very good sense for a wide range of projects and people.
In response to your question, I DO agree. Dual purpose, all the way, and we will need it. And have we not recently seen the danger of pouring money into —say— fighter jets, when inexpensive drones coupled with ingenuity and creative thinking seem to be turning the tide in the immoral attempt by Russia to take over Ukraine. Surely this will force us to think more creatively, or risk creating another Maginot Line. We have a war at hand, against fire. I love David Regehr’s note, about using up all,that excess ( right now) aluminum on water bombers.
There are different perspectives on the Russia/Ukraine situation but mostly all war needs to be stopped. All wars are essentially bankers wars. They serve no useful purpose for other than oligarchic interests.
I would suggest multiple use (not just dual use). I'm not hearing anything about food actual human security (not to be confused with military spending, but comprised of health, education, food security). It is very upsetting that PM Carney and the Premiers are doubling down on neoliberal ideas to "nation build" when what we need is to include Canadians, as people, in the equation. An economy does not equate to a nation when it excludes the needs of actual people. In addition, are these "nation-building" projects considering ownership? Will Canada own and benefit from the new infrastructure or will profits go offshore, as has historically been the case?
Exactly. The measure of an economy is how it contributes to human well being.
André Paradis,
Laval, Qc
Hello fellow Canadians,
I’ve read your last email, and I must say I agree with your exposé. To make Canada great again and independent of the U.S. market, we must take a firm stand — at least until TACO disappears from our radar. Only then should we consider reopening our borders, and even then, things will never return to what they were over the last hundred years.
I wonder: why aren’t we imposing tariffs on U.S. ships passing through the Saint Lawrence Seaway — if only to send a message?
And what about closing our airspace to U.S. Super fortresses, constantly flying overhead with A-bombs on board and leaving behind visible chem trails as a reminder of their presence? This so-called "deterrent" is part of the U.S. Air Force's NATO strategy, just in case Putin — their unpredictable friend — decides to launch a nuclear strike. He just might, to prove he’s stronger than TACO.
Closing our airspace would assert Canadian sovereignty and send a clear signal: we are tolerant, but not naïve. We’ve already closed the Alaska border — why not restrict their military flights too? Yes, we signed the NATO agreement, but knowing TACO’s childish pride, he might just keel over during one of his morning tantrums.
It must be dual purpose as one of the purposes will be rarely used.
Just an opinion. The 5 percent for defense spending does seem ludicrous, especially when it comes at the expense of programs that help all Canadians have a protected environment, democratic freedoms, and a decent standard of living. I keep wondering who gets to decide what the definition of nation-building is? To retain self-sufficiency in food production is highest priority for this retired farmer. In many ways that is also defense, to have a nation that has no impediments to feeding all of its peoples, that no other nation can obstruct. Clearly we need to have projects that use more of our steel and aluminium at home. I like the water bomber production idea. But what is nagging at me us how do we extricate ourselves from the rather deep military integration with the States when they turn full fascist? How do we keep the new over the horizon system we are going to purchase from Australia from landing in American hands and benefitting them more than us? I know I am jumping around here. There seems to be no new ideas under the sun to help with homelessness. Finland had done a stellar job but no one wants to try something similar. If homeless people could join environmental projects or be trained in urban agriculture, which included housing, would that be considered dual purpose? Just brainstorming . In a roundabout way I am saying that we keep problem issues in silos and have trouble looking across multiple needs and seeing where there could be innovative solutions that address more than one problem. I used to think human creativity set free without political constraints could come up with solutions for just about anything in the wider world. Put the right brains together and the rewards could be immense. But I am now thinking we are breeding creativity right out of the human race. But relying on AI fully is still questionable. My son uses AI in his job. He says it is still alarming the amount and degree of mistakes that it makes. As in it has to still be triple checked for accuracy. He is surprised by that. My concern is the number of people in leadership positions that may be willing to allow AI to take over projects but not build in double checking that it is not going off in some odd direction. Or being used in some weird way that does not apply. Like when Trump tariffed the penguins on that island. Like nobody could just look it up before making an announcement of that size? Obviously I need some rest and to marshal my thoughts.
No need for 5%. That will just escalate war mongering which leads to untold suffering. Let us care for each other both here at home in Canada and across the world.
Although China and Russia only spend 400B, their human costs are a lot lower
We need to move from either-or to both-and thinking. This is how we prioritize. Both economic and humanitarian , or defence and indigenous rights. Once you wrap your head around this, it’s not so hard to grok!
We have neglected military spending for too long and look at what’s going on with China and Russia . We are very ill prepared to face any military threats. Investment in the military is imperative. As for the number$, ???
More war is a literally ‘dead’ end. We have to figure out how to avoid it or kiss humanity goodbye.
What threats? China has offered to trade and build infrastructure with Canada. And they accepted our ‘no thanks’. Unlike US threatening to annex 🇨🇦 to take whatever it wants. Russia has been patient for years asking for an EU security architecture -Peace- since 2007 Munich Conference. (See on YouTube Putin’s address) The Allies(US led) have not included Russians’ security in their plans and coups expansion of NATO - which they promised would not happen. China and Russia have been clear and consistent in their commitments and communications. Patient too, with bullying and bullies. NATO has been liars consistently ignoring anything, agreements, other than their warmongering hegemony. NATO countries have been liars at home too. Check out Jeffrey Sachs on YouTube for reality check beyond Western propaganda.
Russia's whole game is sphere of influence and their peaceful approaches are merely diktats to disrupt. No one has any interest in invading Russia. The Russian's only want the freedom to carry out their Soviet desires, a la Ukraine, whom they accuse of being a Nazi regime. You can bet if they succeed with Ukraine the Baltic states are next.
https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2022/06/russias-lesser-known-intentions-in-ukraine?lang=en
Hi again David, Above is link that supports your comment, I think. Olivia Lazard is known for her TED talks, excellent work. One thing, she is funded by a think tank that is funded by the US government. I find administrations often don’t follow policy recommended by this think tank, Carnegie, but it uses them to propagate their public image as democratic, just, morally exceptional preachers of chritisn virtue - hiding the very agenda they accuse Russia and China have done - only Russia and China do things better and cheaper- with more intentions to lift their people’s standard of living, education.
Have you looked at what Russia has asked for? Are you aware they had come to an agreement with Zelensky, to maintain Ukraine neutrality, and the West via Boris Johnson pulled out. Pulled out of peace. US does not do diplomacy. Are you aware that Ukraine has had a coup led by the US 2014, which got rid of aUkraine’s democratically elected government. There are some nazis in the Ukraine, they have been rebranded by US, who is happy to arm them.There are also first language Russian speaking Ukrainians who were not treated as equals in Ukraine. There are many reliable authoritative sources discussing Ukraine’s situation. On Substack- Glen Diesen and Pascal Lottaz’s Neutrality Studies have interviews and analysis. YouTube interview of Patrick Baab a journalist from Germany has frontline reporting as well. Please provide resources for your opinion David. I believe we all want out opinions to be grounded in reality and guided by caring.
I may be a victim of TLDR, but by cutting foreign aid, the need for defense budgets may indeed increase. Impoverished countries with an angry populace are an increased risk of conflict. Foreign aid, in addition to being "the right thing to do", is also a vaccination against future conflicts.