Canada faces a convergence of crises that demands unconventional thinking. Tariff-armed American nationalism has exposed the fragility of our economic dependence on the United States. A severe housing shortage affects every region and generation. And the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), starved of investment for decades, cannot adequately house their own personnel, let alone defend the country’s vast northern and Arctic territories. These problems are usually treated as separate, when they should not be.

We propose an integrated approach: train sectors of the military in construction skills to build housing for service members, veterans, and eventually the broader Canadian public. The concept is not as radical as it sounds. Canada has a long record of turning military mobilization into a lever for economic change.

When Mobilization Built the Economy

The relationship between military capacity and economic development is well-established. When Canada mobilized for the First World War, the effort transformed the country’s economy and international standing. Mobilization for the Second World War did it again. 

Industrial capacity was retooled from the ground up to build warships, aircraft, and weapons. Women and groups previously excluded from industrial work entered the labour force in large numbers. Governments at both levels worked inventively alongside the private sector, and within six years national output had climbed dramatically.

This pattern is not unique to wartime. Post-war reconstruction in Europe and Japan demonstrated the same logic: military capacity put to work on civilian rebuilding. Today, countries with vast territories routinely deploy their militaries for infrastructure development. India’s Border Roads Organization builds and maintains roads, bridges, and airfields across remote regions. The US Army Corps of Engineers commits billions annually to construction projects, including housing, hospitals, roads, and schools.

Nor is this a departure from military tradition. Engineering and construction were historically core military competencies.High-level engineering and construction skills were, for most of history, cultivated within the military. What we now call “civil engineering” — the application of those skills to non-military ends — only became a distinct field in the modern period. What we propose is not a deviation from military purpose, but a return to it.

A Military That Cannot House Its Own People

The scale of the problem is stark: a recent Auditor General report documented crumbling facilities, unsafe drinking water, and more than 3,700 service members waiting for housing with just 205 units available. The Canadian Forces Housing Agency operates with a restricted budget and fewer than 300 staff nationwide. Contracting the work to private firms has only driven up costs without delivering results.

Meanwhile, housing anxiety is a key factor inhibiting military recruitment. The inability to provide stable housing undermines retention, morale, and operational readiness. The problem feeds itself: potential recruits see a military that cannot take care of its own, and they look elsewhere.

How the Proposal Works

The initiative would focus on select sectors of the CAF rather than the entire force. The CAF already has a dedicated trade for this: the construction technician, trained in carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, masonry, and heavy equipment. An expanded engineering corps, logistics and support units, reserve forces, and specialized volunteer programs could all serve as vehicles for scaling up construction capacity. Focusing on specific sectors preserves core operational readiness while building new capabilities.

Because accredited certifications matter for post-military careers, training would be developed in collaboration with existing trade schools and construction industry experts. Housing projects could incorporate modular, prefabricated designs adapted to Canada’s diverse climates, with energy-efficient construction, triple-insulated walls, and sustainable materials. Military families would be served first, with expansion to address housing emergencies in underserved communities, including Indigenous populations.

A homeownership incentive could be built into the program: service members who complete their term of service would qualify for a home they helped build. The benefit addresses recruitment and retention at once, while giving veterans both a tangible asset as well as marketable competencies and experience that would facilitate transition into senior positions within construction and other project‑driven sectors.  Those skills feed directly into the broader construction industry at a time when Canada desperately needs skilled leadership.

This approach would also align with the federal government’s Build Canada Homes program, which targets 500,000 new homes per year through direct government intervention in construction. A military-trained, deployable construction workforce could complement the program’s goals by reducing reliance on external contractors and accelerating housing delivery on federal lands. 

The housing crisis is the most immediate application, but the principle extends further. Canada faces serious gaps in northern and Arctic development: remote communities lack reliable roads, communications infrastructure, and stable food supply. A military trained and equipped for construction could be deployed to these regions, serving both security and civilian development needs. The same logic applies to disaster response, where rapid deployment of personnel with construction skills would strengthen Canada’s resilience against climate-driven emergencies.

None of this is wishful thinking. A broader national strategy integrating military and economic development is what Canada has done before, under far greater pressure, with far fewer resources. During the Second World War, Canadian governments bypassed the procedural caution that grinds change to a halt. They placed results-oriented people in decision-making roles and gave them room to adapt as the situation demanded.

Canada needs that kind of ambition again; the precedents are there. What is missing is the willingness to look at a military recruit with a hammer and see not a deviation from defence policy, but its oldest tradition put to work on the country’s most pressing need.

Dr. Daniel Cere and Lieutenant Nikolas Dolmat‘s article, “Military mobilization and nation-building: Aligning defence investment with economic development,” is published in International Journal and available here.

© OpenCanada