Government hints at boosting Canada’s military spending

I have long said that you could fund the CAF to 4 percent of GDP, but we would still lag behind in NATO and be much the same where we are.

It's never the money, it's politics. It's procedures. It's the pork-barreling in our defence spending that makes us a paper tiger in NATO.

My only hope in all of this for the CAF and the GoC, whatever the political stripe that may be, is that it will rouse them out of the "Peace Dividend" slumber. The world has been unstable since 1945. We have used geography, proximity, and association as a Defence Policy ever since. ICBMs don't care how close to the U.S. or how far from Russia/China we are.

Don't give us a dime more, but let us spend money on defence like it matters. The fact we follow the same rules for purchasing a fighter aircraft as we do for buying office furniture for a Service Canada office is disgraceful. Don't treat defense procurement as a stimulus package for Canadian Industry. There I said it.

We spend so much money, time, and effort trying to get that money to stay in Canada; be it by awarding contracts to companies with no capability to produce items without first "retooling" and"developing the production lines", or by hamstringing perfectly competent and competitive bidders by forcing the project to be made in St. Margaret de Poutain de Champignon, QC because the ruling government either lost the seat in the election, or won it with promises.

We spend so much money and staff hours jumping through TBS regulations that are great for other departments, but are terrible for defence procurement. Some items you have to sole source, because there are technologies and capabilities no one else makes. By doing the bid process, you get companies clamoring for a project they can't deliver on, but because they tick the bright boxes on the score sheet....

I truly and honestly belief we need to split from PSPC and legislate that its not beholden to TBS, only to the PBO/PCO. The guiding principles of this new Defence Procurement department should be "Off the shelf, from somewhere else" if there isn't an industry in Canada.

BOOTFORGEN has demonstrated how well we do when we are able to actually get what we need, instead of lining the pockets of a Canadian company that got lucky.

That, but with tanks, fighters, ships, weapons systems....

 

[Furniture]

Do those fall under DND/CAF specifically? Is RP Ops or CFHA under the purview of the co-located base commander? Specifically, can the military side of the chain even do anything about this?

I'm serious - last time I was at a Wing, the WComd said he would love to build more accommodations, but it wasn't his call. Mind you, it was a while ago and I probably had a few drinks then, so I may have misheard.

To be fair, I haven't looked into the ARAs for CAF housing, but it is something we have allowed to atrophy to a point that it no longer meets the needs of the CAF.

That's all the HQ speak I can muster on a Saturday, after a week of leave.

 

[MilEME09]

To be fair, I haven't looked into the ARAs for CAF housing, but it is something we have allowed to atrophy to a point that it no longer meets the needs of the CAF.

That's all the HQ speak I can muster on a Saturday, after a week of leave.

Does anything we have meet our needs any more? Other then the over abundance of HQs

 

[Furniture]

Does anything we have meet our needs any more? Other then the over abundance of HQs

BOOTFORGEN... entirely because it is the least bureaucratic thing we do WRT kitting out our people.

 

[ballz]

I have been saying for a long time that I would not give the CAF any additional money until it sorts itself out.

In saying that, legislation needs to be passed to give the DND it's own set of contracting rules. Perhaps the TB already has the authority and doesn't need any additional legislation to write that policy, if so, great, time to get on with it. The DND, namely our GOFOs, needs to advocate for this. I don't understand what motivates them to want such esteemed position if it's not to try and influence change for the better... surely it couldn't be all of these pet project COMREL activities, or perhaps that's all it is. This would be such a win for any serving government to implement, I really don't see the downside.

Regarding money, even with the crappy contracting rules, we have no excuse for what we've done to ourselves and just need to admit institutional incompetence - and the root cause of that is individual incompetence. The internal auditors (ADM Review Services) has routinely roasted the CAF for it's inability to manage money and like always, we keep tasking the people who created the god damn mess with fixing it instead of firing them and hiring someone competent.

I'm sure the CAF will create a new two star position to investigate possible solutions to retention, and get back to us all in 15-30 years.

No doubt that 2-star was one of the direct causes of the retention issues we've had. See above point about tasking people who create the problem with fixing it.

BOOTFORGEN... entirely because it is the least bureaucratic thing we do WRT kitting out our people.

Yup. Easily one of the best things we did, and even still there are people within the CAF that manage to fuck it up by inserting their own incompetence.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I have been saying for a long time that I would not give the CAF any additional money until it sorts itself out.

In saying that, legislation needs to be passed to give the DND it's own set of contracting rules. Perhaps the TB already has the authority and doesn't need any additional legislation to write that policy, if so, great, time to get on with it. The DND, namely our GOFOs, needs to advocate for this. I don't understand what motivates them to want such esteemed position if it's not to try and influence change for the better... surely it couldn't be all of these pet project COMREL activities, or perhaps that's all it is. This would be such a win for any serving government to implement, I really don't see the downside.

Regarding money, even with the crappy contracting rules, we have no excuse for what we've done to ourselves and just need to admit institutional incompetence - and the root cause of that is individual incompetence. The internal auditors (ADM Review Services) has routinely roasted the CAF for it's inability to manage money and like always, we keep tasking the people who created the god damn mess with fixing it instead of firing them and hiring someone competent.

(BOOTFORGEN) Easily one of the best things we did, and even still there are people within the CAF that manage to fuck it up by inserting their own incompetence.

Agree on all points.

We should be identifying the need and sourcing the solution within DND. That should take no longer than 12 months. TB keeps us accountable. Defense Procurement cuts the cheque.

At no point should political considerations take part in the process.

 

[Furniture]

Regarding money, even with the crappy contracting rules, we have no excuse for what we've done to ourselves and just need to admit institutional incompetence - and the root cause of that is individual incompetence. The internal auditors (ADM Review Services) has routinely roasted the CAF for it's inability to manage money and like always, we keep tasking the people who created the god damn mess with fixing it instead of firing them and hiring someone competent.

One of our biggest problems with competence is we churn through people so fast in key positions that they never learn how to actually do their job. On top of that, we cut positions down to the point that we need each person we have to be marginally competent at several jobs, rather than being an expert in one.

While it's great that we have "well rounded" leaders, we achieved it at the expense of having experts.

 

[Good2Golf]

Agree on all points.

We should be identifying the need and sourcing the solution within DND. That should take no longer than 12 months. TB keeps us accountable. Defense Procurement cuts the cheque.

‘Defen(c)e Procurement?’

As in what particular organization in the GoC, do you mean?

In reality, for some lower risk projects, DND is permitted by TB to internally (Ministerially) approve expenditure of some allocated funds and work direct with PSPC to contract said projects within that Department’s contracting authority. Otherwise, it absolutely is Treasury Board’s approvals that grant both Expenditure Authority (EA) and Contracting Authority (CA) to DND and PSPC, respectively, for major capital projects deemed beyond the departments’ ability to self-approve.

At no point should political considerations take part in the process.

Hmmm.

Okay, let’s try this approach…the military is under civilian control in Canada. Civilian control is represented directly by Parliament. Parliament does indeed have political consideration to its business of representing Canadians.

Thus, procurement will absolutely have political considerations.

 

[Kirkhill]

My understanding is infrastructure is under one organization, same with housing, which has been under funded.

Why is that a defence issue at all? Why isn't that purely a PWGSC/PSPC matter?

 

[dimsum]

Why is that a defence issue at all? Why isn't that purely a PWGSC/PSPC matter?

And following onto that, why would PSPC care about the DND/CAF requirement for buildings?

From PSPC's perspective, DND accommodations must be so far down the priority list that I'd be shocked they even consider it at all.

It sucks for us in this forum because we are (or know) people affected by this, but I would be shocked if the average Canadian would care about something that affects about 300k people (and that's generous) throughout the country.

I'm not saying it's not a valid complaint, I'm saying that most civilians in Canada wouldn't care.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

‘Defen(c)e Procurement?’

As in what particular organization in the GoC, do you mean?

In reality, for some lower risk projects, DND is permitted by TB to internally (Ministerially) approve expenditure of some allocated funds and work direct with PSPC to contract said projects within that Department’s contracting authority. Otherwise, it absolutely is Treasury Board’s approvals that grant both Expenditure Authority (EA) and Contracting Authority (CA) to DND and PSPC, respectively, for major capital projects deemed beyond the departments’ ability to self-approve.

I have largely felt that large capital projects are stymied because of PSPC. A lot of the time, we lose the initiative due to using the wrong tool for the job. Splitting PSPC into a separate department that focuses solely on Defence Procurment is a solution worth looking into

Hmmm.

Okay, let’s try this approach…the military is under civilian control in Canada. Civilian control is represented directly by Parliament. Parliament does indeed have political consideration to its business of representing Canadians.

Thus, procurement will absolutely have political considerations.

While I agree with civilian oversight of the military, I don't believe that Defence spending should ever be used for vote buying or partisanship. The amount of time, money, and capabilities that have been wasted due to "it was the last guy's project...not mine" is criminal and has crippled our operational effectiveness.

If we were a grown up country, we would make defence a non-partisan issue. Sadly we aren't and we see the "No buying F-35s...." scenario play out every election cycle.

 

[Kirkhill]

And following onto that, why would PSPC care about the DND/CAF requirement for buildings?

From PSPC's perspective, DND accommodations must be so far down the priority list that I'd be shocked they even consider it at all.

It sucks for us in this forum because we are (or know) people affected by this, but I would be shocked if the average Canadian would care about something that affects about 300k people (and that's generous) throughout the country.

I'm not saying it's not a valid complaint, I'm saying that most civilians in Canada wouldn't care.

Check out the number of departments whose Plans and Priorities include a revenue stream.

Servicemen get a living allowance together with a salary.
They get to spend that allowance wherever they like.
PWGSC-PSPC can tap into that revenue stream - if they treat their customers right.

It is the Charter School argument.
If the kids are ordered to a school the quality of the school sucks.
If the kids are free to go to a school of their choice, and take their money with them, the quality of the school drastically increases.

Same for Doctors and health care.

If PSPC saw a viable revenue stream from serving members, the same as it sees from the tenants in its office portfolio, I believe it would be encouraged to act in mutual best interest.

 

[kev994]

Does anything we have meet our needs any more? Other then the over abundance of HQs

Actually, I’d argue that no one in there has any idea whose got the authority to do anything, since they all just took over this APS and never got a handover, so the whole place is just a matrix of COAs and indecision.

 

[Good2Golf]

I have largely felt that large capital projects are stymied because of PSPC. A lot of the time, we lose the initiative due to using the wrong tool for the job. Splitting PSPC into a separate department that focuses solely on Defence Procurment is a solution worth looking into

If you meant the Defence Procurement Strategy (& Secretariat) then I’d agree with you. The DSP construct was IMO yet another example of trying to improve a system/process by adding additional process, checkpoints and layers of interference approval to the way things were procured, I’m the same way that government thinks that a Royal Commission will always get to the bottom of things and improve them
For the next time…then I’ll agree with you.

If you mean the actual non-DPS(S) organization, I’d beg to differ. Working several MCPs, I found working with PSPC directly (not the ‘we’re here to help and make things ‘easier’’ overhead, but key working members at the ADM/DG/ExFir/Dir level) to be a positive experience, they were sincerely committed to helping DND acquire capability it needs.

As a general rule…”more process” in and of itself doesn’t improve things.

While I agree with civilian oversight of the military, I don't believe that Defence spending should ever be used for vote buying or partisanship. The amount of time, money, and capabilities that have been wasted due to "it was the last guy's project...not mine" is criminal and has crippled our operational effectiveness.

If we were a grown up country, we would make defence a non-partisan issue. Sadly we aren't and we see the "No buying F-35s...." scenario play out every election cycle.

This I totally agree with you. Defence should have general agreement by all of government that is based on something like a Defence policy and a task and capability based plan that is agreed by ALL of Parliament, not just a timely-costed glossy brochure like SSE. It should transcend Governments and refreshed on a regular basis, again by whole of Parliament, vice being used as a target to help balance outrageous promises in other areas as is want to happen.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Agree on all points.

We should be identifying the need and sourcing the solution within DND. That should take no longer than 12 months. TB keeps us accountable. Defense Procurement cuts the cheque.

At no point should political considerations take part in the process.

Like every other major spending decision made by the Federal government, right?

 

[Kirkhill]

As a general rule…”more process” in and of itself doesn’t improve things.

Carve that in stone over the doors of every government building.

If you can't figure it out after 3 iterations you can't figure it out. Move on!

 

[McG]

From PSPC's perspective, DND accommodations must be so far down the priority list that I'd be shocked they even consider it at all.

Living accommodations should be a DCC problem, not PSPC.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I like the idea of letting the CAF govern its own procurement, I really do.

But right now I cant trust LT(N) HoDs to manage a small department budget correctly without going broke in the first 4 months of the FA.

Couple this with the fact that that LT(N) won't be held accountable for the fiscal mismanagement and will likely get promoted I will firmly place my feet on the side that says the CAF is a petulant child who will blow it's allowance on mechanix gloves and multi tools if left to its own devices, and definitely requires adults to manage its shekels.

To sum up, great idea. But no.

 

[PuckChaser]

Living accommodations should be a DCC problem, not PSPC.

Good thing DCC sucks just as bad as PSPC at their job then...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Good thing DCC sucks just as bad as PSPC at their job then...

Depends where you are. I had really, really good luck with a small DCC cell, out west.

 

[PuckChaser]

As you get closer to the common sense blackhole of the NCR, I think things get worse