Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread)

[jmt18325]

At the end of the day it is a loss for the Navy, and the CAF, because a group of bureaucrats didn't want it to happen, even when the military and the minister did. Kinda tells you who has the real power in the department.

I think the message was, if you want this, we need more money.

 

[dapaterson]

So, on re-reading the article, "... former defence minister Jason Kenney received conflicting advice from top civilian and military commanders, but decided to ignore it and made a last-minute, personal pitch to French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian."

Or, in other words, the minister read the advice he was given and took action on his own to contact the French - and then stopped.  Not bureaucratic advice.  Ministerial decision.

Ultimately it is the elected officials who are accountable.  Blaming someone else is convenient politics, but very bad public policy.  Ministers are accountable for their decisions.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Link to article seems to be dead. Here is an updated one.

Thanks for that - fixed the original link.

 

[Edward Campbell]

So, on re-reading the article, "... former defence minister Jason Kenney received conflicting advice from top civilian and military commanders, but decided to ignore it and made a last-minute, personal pitch to French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian."

Or, in other words, the minister read the advice he was given and took action on his own to contact the French - and then stopped.  Not bureaucratic advice.  Ministerial decision.

Ultimately it is the elected officials who are accountable.  Blaming someone else is convenient politics, but very bad public policy.  Ministers are accountable for their decisions.

Bingo!

And every single Canadian prime minister after John Diefenbaker was/is complicit is in trying to deny ministerial accountability and, thereby, weakening the Westminster system of responsible (accountable to parliament) government which has been built, slowly and painfully for 700+ or even, one might say, for 1,000+ years.

The Americans have a good system of representative, constitutional democracy ... good, but not as "good" as ours which is much more democratic. But we seem intent on following the US cultural lead, even when it is, demonstrably, not a good thing. That is indicative of a socio-cultural weakness on our collective part: we, Canadians, lack confidence so we look at the "big kid" next door and do what he does, even when he is wrong. We lack confidence because the "big kid" is bigger, stronger, richer and so on and we want to be like him ... but without doing the hard things he does to stay in top form.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I have to say that part of the report baffled me a bit: If minister Kenny wanted to get those ships and spoke with the French about it, I would tend to think the French would have welcomed Canadian ownership over Egyptian one any day.

But two things here: First, no one ever heard anything about it, which would mean that it was not  Kenny making a decision to acquire and then turning the department on to get it done. Second, if such "decision" was made to approach the French, wouldn't that have required assent of the PM before getting on with talks with the French - something that would have been noted somewhere in the briefing note also?

It seems to me more likely that what is referred to here, when talking about the minister, is that he, alone and on his own, might have approached the French government (likely his counterpart) to try and have them stall making their decision so he could work the idea through cabinet or the caucus and gain support for it.

Should that be the case, we are not dealing with ministerial accountability because the idea went nowhere outside the minister's own personal views: It never became expressed as government policy.

 

[Underway]

...
And every single Canadian prime minister after John Diefenbaker was/is complicit is in trying to deny ministerial accountability and, thereby, weakening the Westminster system of responsible (accountable to parliament) government ....

I'm not entirely sure what you mean regarding complicit in denying accountability.  Can you please expand on that point?

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean regarding complicit in denying accountability.  Can you please expand on that point?

Certainly ...

The essence of our system is that a ministry (cabinet) is responsible to Parliament, and thereby, to the people. The ministry must always have the confidence of the House of Commons in order to govern; periodic elections are our way of affirming the public's trust in Parliament. Concomitantly, individual ministers are accountable, to Parliament (usually the HoC, but maybe in the Senate) for whatever happens in their departments. They may bring staff to committee meetings to help with detail but, in principle, the responsibility rests on the minister's shoulders.

Back in the 1950s and 60s (before, too, I suppose) it was fairly normal for ministers to resign when their department (not them, personally) blundered. They resigned, publicly, and sat on the back benches, often only for six months or so, while their reputation was refurbished ~ political memories are short ~ although some could never recover.

Starting in about 1970 we began to see a much more "businesslike" approach to politics and ministers morphed into executives instead of servants. It became less and less common for ministers to resign, even when their departments were rocked by scandals and mismanagement ... think about e.g. Bryce Mackasey, who was something of a poster child for ministerial unaccountability when he was e.g. Postmaster General, Labour Minister and Minister of Immigration and all of those departments were shaken by scandals but Minister Mackasey survived them all, immune to calls for his resignation as an act of accountability. Prime Minister Mulroney was talking about Bryce Mackasey when he made his "no whore like an old whore" quip (re: patronage) but he, Mulroney, kept Trudeau's system of protecting ministers and, therefore, protecting the Party's brand, by refusing to allow ministers to resign when their departments screwed up.

It was fairly common, in the 1950s and '60s for ministers to rise in the House to "correct" misstatements made in response to questions. It was a tiny bit of public humiliation that served to remind Canadians, parliamentarians and ministers that they, the ministers, were personally responsible for everything that came out of or was done by their whole department, even one as big as DND. But that stopped in the 1970s, when the "professionals" took over the political process and decided that even a little, tiny bit of ritual humiliation was too much and we began to see situations where whole departments had to revise policies and projects to accommodate misstatements or even off the cuff remarks made by the PM or ministers in the house.

Now, I am not pining for the "good old days," there is, actually, some real principles involved in ministerial accountability and a proper system, in which ministers can be held to account, does not have to twist and squirm and waste countless millions in bureaucratic fictions to "cover" for a simple, honest, ministerial misstatement of fact. In a properly functions system of accountability/responsibility PMs do not need to wait for colossal, public ministerial bungles ...

         

... before they "get rid of the losers," the bridge players say.

The system is, therefore, weaker because an important safety valve is not being used.

 

[McG]

Have any participants of this thread dropped their thoughts here:
http://www.defenceconsultations.ca/defence-capabilities-future-force/forum_topics/what-additional-measures-could-the-department-of-national-defence-undertake-along-with-partner-departments-to-improve-defence-procurement1

I know we have plenty of members with experience in the area from requirements definition through to implementation.

 

[CBH99]

I truly hope the government listens to some of the ideas posted on that thread.  A lot of what has been said here for years, and some really common sense suggestions that would streamline a lot of the complications we currently have.

 

[Good2Golf]

Have any participants of this thread dropped their thoughts here:
http://www.defenceconsultations.ca/defence-capabilities-future-force/forum_topics/what-additional-measures-could-the-department-of-national-defence-undertake-along-with-partner-departments-to-improve-defence-procurement1

I know we have plenty of members with experience in the area from requirements definition through to implementation.

:nod:

...on my second day of retirement. 

G2G

 

[MilEME09]

I do hope the government listens and reforms the process, it should not take over half a decade to buy trucks, boots, and other equipment. I firmly believe that if process wasn't so broken we would have a lot more additional funds available to purchase equipment.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Just made official--note Stephane Dion has been included (I speculate as to why):

Yes, Virginia, There is a Canadian “Cabinet Committee on Defence Procurement”
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-yes-virginia-there-is-a-canadian-cabinet-committee-on-defence-procurement/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jollyjacktar]

Lieberals are looking at the F-18 Super Hornets as the close the capability gap measure with a purchase of 18 aircraft.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210

 

[Kirkhill]

Lieberals are looking at the F-18 Super Hornets as the close the capability gap measure with a purchase of 18 aircraft.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jet-purchase-announcement-1.3862210

JJT - conversation going on over here

http://army.ca/forums/threads/120786/post-1464887.html#msg1464887

In the meantime - According to this from Mercedes Stephenson they are not committing to buying they are committing to "explore the acquisition" -

Mercedes Stephenson ‏@CTVMercedes  4h4 hours ago Ottawa, Ontario
Govt says they will enter into discussions with US and Boeing about "use of these jets" re 18 Super Hornets. Weird language #cdnpoli #caf

Mercedes Stephenson ‏@CTVMercedes  4h4 hours ago Ottawa, Ontario
#Breaking Canada will "immediately explore the acquisition of 18 Super Hornets" as interim buy #cdnpoli #CAF

 

[jollyjacktar]

Thanks,  lousy search parameters of mine, it didn't come up.

 

[MarkOttawa]

From the Libarary of Parliament:

The Evolution of Defence Procurement in Canada
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2016-09-e.html?cat=international

Via Prof. Philippe Lagassé on twitter:
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/807992348869349377

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Matthew Fisher bang on:

New book pleads for fix to Canada’s dysfunctional military procurement system

The new book Charlie Foxtrot: Fixing Defence Procurement in Canada [ https://www.amazon.ca/Charlie-Foxtrot-Fixing-Defence-Procurement/dp/1459736753 ] is a “cri de coeur” for political leaders to forge a bipartisan approach when deciding what to buy for the Canadian Armed Forces.


The author, Kim Nossal, is not delusional. The Queen’s University professor [ http://www.queensu.ca/politics/people/faculty/kim-richard-nossal ] recognizes that for this to happen “involves a considerable leap of faith.” However, given how procurement blunders have “degraded the Canadian military,” he argues a better way must be found to replace them than the largely dysfunctional procurement system that exists at present.

Charlie Foxtrot — military shorthand for “clusterf—” — is particularly relevant today because the Liberal government is seemingly intent on equaling if not surpassing the their Conservative predecessors’ brutal mishandling of the multi-billion dollar programme to finally buy new fighter jets [see "What Stinking RCAF Fighter “Capability Gap” for NORAD and NATO?" https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/mark-collins-what-stinking-rcaf-fighter-capability-gap-for-norad-and-nato/ ]...

It has not only been the politicians who are to blame for Canada’s politicized procurement process. The media treat procurement as political theatre. There is little dispassionate analysis of the choices and the dilemmas involved in buying equipment that must last for decades in an environment where technological advances can render many acquisitions quickly obsolete [emphasis added, OH SO SADLY TRUE].

The government, for its part, has never hired enough procurement specialists, a problems that bogs down every purchasing process. Nossal argues that if Canada matched what its allies spend on a GNP basis, a lot of these problems would disappear. As it is, he writes, too many programs are always chasing too few dollars.

Nossal’s inevitable conclusion is that the “root cause” of Canada’s procurement failures has been an absence of political leadership. Governments have been able to get away with botching procurement for years because “the consequences of decisions made by one Parliament will not be felt until much later, usually well past the next general election.”

The only practical solution, Nossal says, is for Canada’s two leading political parties to create a bipartisan approach to defence procurement...There is zero chance that even an exceptionally brave Canadian politician would dare embrace such an obvious and honourable idea [OH SO SADLY TRUE]. Still, Charlie Foxtrot is worth reading to understand how much Canada would benefit if its leaders confounded voters and actually took the high road.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/matthew-fisher-new-book-pleads-for-fix-to-canadas-dysfunctional-military-procurement-system

Lots more on the constant Canadian procurement morass:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/tag/procurement/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

Governments have been able to get away with botching procurement for years because “the consequences of decisions made by one Parliament will not be felt until much later, usually well past the next general election.”

In the case of the delaying the CF-18 replacement, the current government isn't looking to "get away" with it, they're counting on it, by shelving any substantive discussion (which would include the F-35) until after the next election.

 

[dapaterson]

In the case of the delaying the CF-18 replacement, the current government isn't looking to "get away" with it, they're counting on it, by shelving any substantive discussion (which would include the F-35) until after the next election.

Except that, unlike their predecessors who also punted things past the next election, this government is at least acknowledging that the status quo is unsustainable and requires a Band-Aid solution.

 

[Journeyman]

.... requires a Band-Aid solution.

Which the RCAF says isn't required.  Either the government or the Air Force has a 'credibility gap.'