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....

 

[KevinB]

New Brewster article re procurement of the replacement LUVW.

What a fucking clown show.

 

[DBNSG]

New Brewster article re procurement of the replacement LUVW.

I am Old enough to remember one of the first things Paul Martin did on becoming P.M. was move publically and quickly to advance the SeaKing replacement. Perhaps a new P.M. will focus some PMO attention on this file to set a tone.

 

[OldSolduer]

New Brewster article re procurement of the replacement LUVW.

It’s been like this for a while now despite having one of the most entitled corrupt governments ever.

 

[PrairieFella]

What a fucking clown show.

Yes, yes it is. Indefensible really.

 

[brihard]

Indefensible

In more ways than one…

 

[ueo]

No, but we are prepared to send a lot of people over ill equipped to make it look like we are...

And host about 7 million meetings etc, all the while really doing nothing!

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wonder what we would do differently if we were at war and needed to procure stuff right now. And I wonder how much of that could be done right now.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder what we would do differently if we were at war and needed to procure stuff right now. And I wonder how much of that could be done right now.

Canada vehicle production 2023| Statista

The Canadian auto industry produced about 1,159,000 light commercial vehicles, just under 377,000 passenger vehicles, and about 17,530 heavy trucks in 2023.

www.statista.com

Canada manufactures 1,200,000 Light Commercial Vehicles and 18,000 Heavy Vehicles annually.
They are converted to specialized and custom fits in fab shops, much like Roshel, all across the country.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Supply Web, an exposition which has implications for how we should be thinking about everything from suppliers to sources to the economic policies we do or don't cleave to in order to build the economic power necessary to achieve our military (among other) capabilities.

 

[suffolkowner]

Trudeau Liberals will never hit NATO target if DND can't even spend the money it has

"Government policy without money is basically rhetoric," says David Perry, who heads the non-partisan Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

nationalpost.com

no cure for politics but politics IMO. %GDP is moot point when we have a hard time procuring trucks

 

[brihard]

I wonder what we would do differently if we were at war and needed to procure stuff right now. And I wonder how much of that could be done right now.

That would invoke the Urgent Operational Requirement process. It’s been used recently for Latvia and was used extensively in Afghanistan. Problem is that while it shortcuts procurement bureaucracy, we would still be at the mercy of immediately available or urgently expandable production.

 

[FJAG]

It's interesting really. If you follow the Prime Minister's Mandate Letters to the Minister of national Defence, you will find no specific references to overhauling the procurement system in 2015 but you have this for the Minster of Public Services and Procurement:

• Modernize procurement practices so that they are simpler, less administratively burdensome, deploy modern comptrollership, and include practices that support our economic policy goals, including green and social procurement.

That's repeated in the MPSP letter of 2016.

Then in 2019 you get this for the MPSP

• Lead, with the support of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, in bringing forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada, to ensure that Canada’s biggest and most complex National Defence and Canadian Coast Guard procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament. This priority is to be developed concurrently with ongoing procurement projects and existing timelines.

and this for the MND

• Support the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to bring forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada, to ensure that Canada’s biggest and most complex National Defence and Canadian Coast Guard procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament. This priority is to be developed concurrently with ongoing procurement projects and existing timelines.

That disappears for both in the January 2021 mandates as Covid and equity seems to gather steam in priorities

Then in the 2021 reshuffle, the December 2021 mandate letters contain this

• Continue the modernization of procurement practices so they support Canada’s economic policy goals, including balanced procurement opportunities with Canada’s trading partners, provide value for money, are open and transparent and require suppliers of goods and services to apply the highest ethical and sustainability standards across their supply chains.

And this for Anand

The Anand letter has not been updated for Blair.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines that for a brief magical moment in 2019 someone realized that Defence Procurement Canada was a shit show and decided that an specific defence procurement agency was called for but that by 2021, Public Services had put paid to an initiative that would undermine their own fiefdom.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the mandate letters but since they specify overarching government priorities they can't be ignored. There certainly is a so-called Defence Procurement Strategy at work in the government departments but they continue to lag in the detailed planning of improvement. See:

Robust Military Procurement Reform Now - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

 

[McG]

%GDP is moot point when we have a hard time procuring trucks

There are multiple compounding problems. The fact that DND cannot spend on schedule is a major factor to spending below budget, but setting the budget well below NATO targets is a much bigger factor in not meeting NATO commitments. Both of those things contribute to CAF not getting (or getting less than) what it needs.

Most projects set initial scope quantities below CAF requirements to fit inside forecasted funding. The government can decide to fix that now.

That would invoke the Urgent Operational Requirement process. It’s been used recently for Latvia and was used extensively in Afghanistan. Problem is that while it shortcuts procurement bureaucracy, we would still be at the mercy of immediately available or urgently expandable production.

UOR don’t short-cut the process. They just jump to the front of the line for access to all the same decision boards & panels (effectively delaying other projects that were on track for those boards & panels).

 

[daftandbarmy]

There are multiple compounding problems. The fact that DND cannot spend on schedule is a major factor to spending below budget, but setting the budget well below NATO targets is a much bigger factor in not meeting NATO commitments. Both of those things contribute to CAF not getting (or getting less than) what it needs.

Most projects set initial scope quantities below CAF requirements to fit inside forecasted funding. The government can decide to fix that now.



UOR don’t short-cut the process. They just jump to the front of the line for access to all the same decision boards & panels (effectively delaying other projects that were on track for those boards & panels).

Just wondering... has anyone tried to blame the Harper government yet?

 

[markppcli]

New Brewster article re procurement of the replacement LUVW.

Defence Officials game the systems because, and I mean to disrespect, they are largely amateurs in their position temporarily desperately trying to avoid being saddled with one of our litany of procurement blunders. All of this starts the spiral of oversight until we’ve wasted 13 years, and 4 posting cycles, to buy a truck with some armour on it.

 

[FJAG]

UOR don’t short-cut the process. They just jump to the front of the line for access to all the same decision boards & panels (effectively delaying other projects that were on track for those boards & panels).

Exactly. Nor do they provide a step forward in the development of doctrine or the configuration of the CAF as a whole. They merely provide a quick solution to a specific operational need limited in both scope of acquisition and employment and limited in time and support.

It exacerbates the overarching problem that the procurement system does not equip the entire army as a whole but just that part that is currently operationally deployed with a minimal amount of additional equipment for training and a small holding of spares.

 

[suffolkowner]

Exactly. Nor do they provide a step forward in the development of doctrine or the configuration of the CAF as a whole. They merely provide a quick solution to a specific operational need limited in both scope of acquisition and employment and limited in time and support.

It exacerbates the overarching problem that the procurement system does not equip the entire army as a whole but just that part that is currently operationally deployed with a minimal amount of additional equipment for training and a small holding of spares.

why does the UOR have to be limited? Seems very stupid to do everything twice if we get around to it. If we have an UOR for a capability either because we have let it atrophy or just dont have it then its urgent right versus replacing things on a somewhat regular rate. Is it because everything is urgent?

 

[dapaterson]

Defence Officials game the systems because, and I mean to disrespect, they are largely amateurs in their position temporarily desperately trying to avoid being saddled with one of our litany of procurement blunders. All of this starts the spiral of oversight until we’ve wasted 13 years, and 4 posting cycles, to buy a truck with some armour on it.

Officers who have no sense of the time value of money who propose solutions that are unaffordable that spend multiple years circling the drain can step forward.

 

[dapaterson]

It's interesting really. If you follow the Prime Minister's Mandate Letters to the Minister of national Defence, you will find no specific references to overhauling the procurement system in 2015 but you have this for the Minster of Public Services and Procurement:



That's repeated in the MPSP letter of 2016.

Then in 2019 you get this for the MPSP



and this for the MND



That disappears for both in the January 2021 mandates as Covid and equity seems to gather steam in priorities

Then in the 2021 reshuffle, the December 2021 mandate letters contain this



And this for Anand



The Anand letter has not been updated for Blair.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines that for a brief magical moment in 2019 someone realized that Defence Procurement Canada was a shit show and decided that an specific defence procurement agency was called for but that by 2021, Public Services had put paid to an initiative that would undermine their own fiefdom.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the mandate letters but since they specify overarching government priorities they can't be ignored. There certainly is a so-called Defence Procurement Strategy at work in the government departments but they continue to lag in the detailed planning of improvement. See:

PSPC established, a year or so, an ADM to review defence procurement.

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/siobhanharty

 

[dapaterson]

why does the UOR have to be limited? Seems very stupid to do everything twice if we get around to it. If we have an UOR for a capability either because we have let it atrophy or just dont have it then its urgent right versus replacing things on a somewhat regular rate. Is it because everything is urgent?

They are intended as gap fillers and do not generally include long term sustainment.