Beyond Dual Use: Rethinking Defence, Security and Innovation, in the 21st-Century

As Canada prepares to increase its investment in defence, it is important that our government adopt a 21st-century approach to security and sovereignty, one that is defined not only by ships and submarines, but also by research, innovation, and the nation’s ability to generate and apply knowledge.

If Canada is serious about using the coming decade’s surge in defence spending to shape its future, two principles must guide policy. First, defence investment should be used as a lever to strengthen the country’s entire innovation system, with the federal government setting clear strategic priorities and linking them to civilian institutions. Second, the notion of “dual use” technologies that serve both military and civilian ends must be redefined for the 21st century. Security today extends far beyond weapons; it includes health, food, safe cyber spaces, the environment, and importantly, knowledge production and its utilization. 

1. Setting the priorities

The scale of Canada’s potential defence investment is enormous. Ottawa has pledged to raise defence spending to between 3.5 percent  of the GDP on military capacity and another 1.5 percent  on related infrastructure over the next decade. We should note that Canada has the lowest share of R&D investment in NATO. That imbalance reveals a deeper problem: we’re spending billions buying foreign-made equipment while under-investing in the domestic science and technology base that keeps that equipment useful or even relevant. Without a strong innovation backbone, Canada risks becoming a consumer – not a creator- of strategic technologies

The solution starts with priorities. Defence funding shouldn’t just be a procurement budget for contractors. It should act as a long-term policy instrument, an engine that fuels mission-driven investment in key areas of science, technology, and innovation. The United States recognized this a long time ago.Its Department of Defense has spent decades funding research that extends far beyond the battlefield: cancer treatments, climate resilience, agrifood systems, and energy security. None of these look like traditional “military” projects, yet all serve the broader purpose of strengthening the nation’s stability and global influence.

Canada should adopt a similar strategy. Defence R&D should be organized around national priorities, not just military platforms: Arctic monitoring, permafrost engineering, northern energy systems, ocean science, advanced materials, cybersecurity, and population health to name a few. Each of these areas contribute directly to sovereignty. Permafrost degradation, for instance, undermines northern bases and infrastructure; ocean monitoring secures maritime borders and fisheries; and a robust health research infrastructure strengthens national resilience in crises. None of these fit the traditional image of “defence,” yet all are fundamentally about security. Public investment has always played a decisive role in shaping technological frontiers. From wartime radar and GPS to the Internet itself, transformational breakthroughs have historically emerged from clear, government-defined missions that mobilize civilian science toward strategic goals.

Canada needs a similar framework, one that connects defence strategy to innovation and industrial strategy. That means setting out bold, long-term missions that blend security, economic growth, and social resilience. Think Arctic sovereignty, energy transition, health security, and technological self-sufficiency. These are  critical to our defence and sovereignty and to our influence in global affairs. 

To succeed, Ottawa must also reform how funds flow. One-off grants and fragmented programs will not suffice. What is necessary is a stable, multi-year investment stream with clear accountability and transparent metrics, institutions with R&D capabilities, universities, public and private sector firms, to plan infrastructure, hire researchers, and build interdisciplinary centers. Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) can connect federal priorities to academic expertise, using models like the U.S. University-Affiliated Research Centers to sustain collaboration while preserving academic freedom and peer review. Its annual budget (the latest I could find) was $1.5 billion in 2021. Such a framework would also make Canada a stronger partner within NATO’s new Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), which explicitly links science and technology research to defence innovation. A fragmented and underfunded  domestic research ecosystem will prevent Canada from taking a leadership role in such a network. 

2. Defining “dual use”

The term “dual use” has long been shorthand for technologies that have both military and civilian applications, such as radar, satellites, GPS or the Internet. These innovations, born in defence labs, transformed everyday life. But in the 21st century, that definition is too narrow. Today’s security threats- pandemics, climate disruption, cyber-attacks and misinformation- are all part of civilian well-being and national defence. Research that strengthens civilian resilience, that strengthens  our economy, is not separate from security; it is security.

Health, food  and environment innovation ecosystems  are now strategic areas. A nation’s sovereignty depends as much on safeguarding its supply chains, energy grids, data infrastructure, and technological advancement as it does on maintaining military capability. For Canada, this broader lens of security is especially urgent. As a northern nation with vast territory, fragile ecosystems, and dispersed populations, our vulnerabilities are also unique: thawing permafrost threatens bases and communities alike; ocean changes reshape fisheries and maritime boundaries; and climate instability endangers both food security and energy reliability.

In this context, “dual use” should evolve into a more integrated concept of multi-use innovation, where investments serve defence goals while advancing national prosperity and social resilience. Agrifood science strengthens both domestic stability and global influence. Artificial intelligence and quantum technologies, developed ethically and collaboratively, can power both civilian industries and defence systems.

To think beyond dual use is to accept that sovereignty today is intellectual as much as territorial. The power to generate, interpret, and apply knowledge, through universities, public and private sector labs and research institutes and innovation networks, is the foundation of modern defence.

Canada is at a crossroads. It can continue to frame defence narrowly, spending heavily on imported equipment while neglecting the research base that sustains true sovereignty. Or it can seize the opportunity to redefine defence as a catalyst for innovation, productivity and stronger economy and global influence, investing in the knowledge infrastructure that will keep the nation secure in the broadest sense.

What’s needed now is vision from Ottawa, a recognition that defence research isn’t a line item for equipment, but a cornerstone of national strategy. Imagine a framework that connects cancer labs to Arctic stations, agrifood scientists to oceanographers, and engineers to Indigenous communities in the North.

To move beyond dual use is to recognize that security today is multidimensional: it lives in our ecosystems, our institutions, and our collective intelligence. The future of Canada’s defence will not be built solely in shipyards or hangars, but also in our robust research and innovation ecosystem. 

If the government sets the priorities, Canada can turn defence spending into a generator of innovation, sovereignty, and strength for generations to come. The time to begin is now.