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....

 

[FJAG]

I never said it was a report. It is a statutory requirement, that we have managed to reduce to a five year cycle instead of annually. And with an attention span that does not survive APS, and a PME system that tells people they need to be Commanders instead of institutional leaders, it is a continual struggle to remain compliant.

I'm now imagining a positional group email that can be automatically generated by the system at a desired cycle.

This actually gets me the the DOGE kerfuffle discussion and why merely finding positions or money that are "underutilized" or "misspent" isn't enough. You need to root out the myriad of legislation, regulations, policies, programs and other trivia that requires people to administer them. Government is highly adept at building empires but bollocks at taking them down.

 

[Good2Golf]

I know everybody loves to blame Ottawa. But I don't think those folks who work at C Prog really like the bureaucracy either. They are doing what they have to do to try and get kit delivered.

The PMO and ‘aligned’ DMs and ADMs get my blame. They entirely make and follow the orders that are executed to spend or not, taxpayers money as they deem appropriate. If PMO gives PCO the time of day and lets them direct (via TB/TBS) the PS effectively, stuff gets done…Tanks, C-17s, Chinooks, ESSM, UWSU, etc. it is entirely the will of the true elements of power in the GoC to spend or withhold from the Program. Probably a few folks out there who successfully ran a few yellow dockets around town for final signatures then the final journey across the canal from 101 to the James Flarhety Building to get stuff done.

 

[ytz]

The PMO and ‘aligned’ DMs and ADMs get my blame. They entirely make and follow the orders that are executed to spend or not, taxpayers money as they deem appropriate. If PMO gives PCO the time of day and lets them direct (via TB/TBS) the PS effectively, stuff gets done…Tanks, C-17s, Chinooks, ESSM, UWSU, etc. it is entirely the will of the true elements of power in the GoC to spend or withhold from the Program. Probably a few folks out there who successfully ran a few yellow dockets around town for final signatures then the final journey across the canal from 101 to the James Flarhety Building to get stuff done.

Agree with this. I have a good example of this. The same team that delivered the C-17 ahead of schedule and under budget, rolled over and became PMO Fixed Wing SAR and had all kinds of problems. Mostly the same procurement officers, same Project Manager, etc. What was the difference? All kinds of political demands on the new project.

But fundamentally, as we see here, most people don't understand how government works. And they don't understand the difference between bureaucratic competency and political direction. Bad enough when most of the people here don't get it. But even worse with the public who can't tell the difference between Canada Post and the RCAF!

A lot of people assume their interactions with client facing government services (particularly municipal and provincial) mean that the professional class in the federal PS is exactly the same. A lot of the reason why the use of contractors has mushroomed is somewhat because the public doesn't understand what the professional PS does and how importance it is to have this in house, as state capacity.

 

[dapaterson]

FWSAR also suffered from requirements owners not standing up for their requirements.

 

[ytz]

FWSAR also suffered from requirements owners not standing up for their requirements.

I was there. A huge part of this was Industry Canada refusing to advance the MC unless they got a more competitive process. That's not a CAF/DND problem. That is a political failure by the government of the day prioritizing industrial benefits over military necessity.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I was there. A huge part of this was Industry Canada refusing to advance the MC unless they got a more competitive process. That's not a CAF/DND problem. That is a political failure by the government of the day prioritizing industrial benefits over military necessity.

But once the requirements were set, the project didn’t hold the company to the requirements and accepted many deviations to accept aircraft. It felt like the project worked more for Airbus than the CAF.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

But once the requirements were set, the project didn’t hold the company to the requirements and accepted many deviations to accept aircraft. It felt like the project worked more for Airbus than the CAF.

To fair Alenia had a rep for being a difficult company to deal with. It's a shame that Airbus didn't have the C27J design. airbus likley brought more part support and economic benefits to the table , plus an existing footprint in the country. A case of right company, wrong plane.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The quickest way to cut back on Government waste is to cut spending.

Don't study anything, don't look for expert advice, don't even apply logic to it.

Institute cuts to every Department, across the board. Also put in cost controls to more tightly manage how the money is spent. Leave it to the Department Leadership to figure out and propose what is valuable and what isn't.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The quickest way to cut back on Government waste is to cut spending.

Don't study anything, don't look for expert advice, don't even apply logic to it.

Institute cuts to every Department, across the board. Also put in cost controls to more tightly manage how the money is spent. Leave it to the Department Leadership to figure out and propose what is valuable and what isn't.

The easiest way to trim budgets is to work back your services from the legislative requirements you're mandated to deliver.

Over time, mandates expand for a variety of reasons and usually, believe it or not, out of a desire to try and help even more people.

'Follow the legislation' is always a good way to get back to your core services, which can make some people unhappy.

Which is why it's always best to call a good (looking) consultant to give you a hand, of course!

 

[Quirky]

Institute cuts to every Department, across the board.

Bring in the Bobs.

 

[ytz]

But once the requirements were set, the project didn’t hold the company to the requirements and accepted many deviations to accept aircraft. It felt like the project worked more for Airbus than the CAF.

I will note one critical point that is often misunderstood. The PMO doesn't accept deviations. It's the Requirements shops as the Project Directors who do. So blame DAR. Not the PMO.

I wasn't there for contract award and beyond so I won't speak to it. But with other projects from what I have observed this happens because of several overlapping issues:

1) Sunk cost fallacy. If it takes you years to get somewhere and your project is a critical replacement, do you have time to start over? If you had a rough go getting to RFP, what's the risk the next time won't be worse.

2) Lack of an escalation ladder. There's only so much that can be done to bring a company into compliance short of simply cancelling the contract. Some places have a historical rating system that is included in the bid. Screw us over this time and your bid will be discounted on the next project.

3) Dependency. The consequence of tying ISS to the procurement means everybody across the project staff feel pressured to be sensitive to the contractor. "We'll have to work with them for another 20 years."


Should be noted. On the Project Approval Course, the ISED briefer had Fixed Wing SAR as an example of success. That's right. The plane sucks for the CAF. But from industry's perspective the government did the right thing. Which goes back to my original point, governments have to be willing to accept the primacy of military requirements, which hasn't been the case, for decades.

 

[Good2Golf]

But once the requirements were set, the project didn’t hold the company to the requirements and accepted many deviations to accept aircraft. It felt like the project worked more for Airbus than the CAF.

Should be noted. On the Project Approval Course, the ISED briefer had Fixed Wing SAR as an example of success. That's right. The plane sucks for the CAF. But from industry's perspective the government did the right thing. Which goes back to my original point, governments have to be willing to accept the primacy of military requirements, which hasn't been the case, for decades.

Yup, an ISED and PSPC win.

DND just experienced it differently.

 

[KevinB]

DND just experienced it differently.

And the tax payer who will eventually need to replace it...

 

[Kirkhill]

The quickest way to cut back on Government waste is to cut spending.

Don't study anything, don't look for expert advice, don't even apply logic to it.

Institute cuts to every Department, across the board. Also put in cost controls to more tightly manage how the money is spent. Leave it to the Department Leadership to figure out and propose what is valuable and what isn't.

Sure and everybody knows the most valuable part of the department is its leadership. Fire the rest.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The quickest way to cut back on Government waste is to cut spending.

Don't study anything, don't look for expert advice, don't even apply logic to it.

Institute cuts to every Department, across the board. Also put in cost controls to more tightly manage how the money is spent. Leave it to the Department Leadership to figure out and propose what is valuable and what isn't.

You very quickly find out what the "sacred cows" are with that approach, with calls from the minister to refund program X and they don't care where the money is coming from. Plus senior management will protect itself, as will their minions, it will be the coalface that takes the hit.

The CPC did try to cut services along with staff, they got it wrong, but the idea is good. You need to be honest with Canadians that not everything is affordable and to cut taxes, services and supports need to be cut as well.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

You very quickly find out what the "sacred cows" are with that approach, with calls from the minister to refund program X and they don't care where the money is coming from. Plus senior management will protect itself, as will their minions, it will be the coalface that takes the hit.

The CPC did try to cut services along with staff, they got it wrong, but the idea is good. You need to be honest with Canadians that not everything is affordable and to cut taxes, services and supports need to be cut as well.

That was my thinking. I witnessed the CPC do this back in 2013/2014 and it was interesting. They made it very hard to spend money and also told everyone they still had to do everything.

A lot of screaming ensued but.... people got on with it and the budget was balanced by 2015. Just in time for the current Govt to blow the bank.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They overestimated the work saving of their regulatory changes and they had teams in Ottawa making decisions with very little ground knowledge, hence we were forced to lay off a exceptional employee and keep a problematic one one. They also laid off our only GIS tech which became a major issue for our modernization project to include GIS into our database. One thing I liked and needs to be done at the Provincial and Municipal level was 1 regulation had to go, to introduce a new one.

 

[Remius]

They overestimated the work saving of their regulatory changes and they had teams in Ottawa making decisions with very little ground knowledge, hence we were forced to lay off an exceptional employee and keep a problematic one one. They also laid off our only GIS tech which became a major issue for our modernization project to include GIS into our database. One thing I liked and needs to be done at the Provincial and Municipal level was 1 regulation had to go, to introduce a new one.

In our case we couldn’t replace any of our procurement instructors and course went stale because the policy centres couldn’t update anything because they has other things to do because they couldn’t replace some of their people.

We also ended up with Phoenix…

 

[YZT580]

And the tax payer who will eventually need to replace it...

needs to replace it now. 'We are wasting time and dollars pursuing a flawed purchase

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They overestimated the work saving of their regulatory changes and they had teams in Ottawa making decisions with very little ground knowledge, hence we were forced to lay off a exceptional employee and keep a problematic one one. They also laid off our only GIS tech which became a major issue for our modernization project to include GIS into our database. One thing I liked and needs to be done at the Provincial and Municipal level was 1 regulation had to go, to introduce a new one.

But.... they did balance the budget.

I bet you could go to every single Govt Manager during that time period and they would point out something they weren't able to do due to the funding cuts.

You will never get it 100% correct when it comes to managing something as large and as complex as Government finances.

Canadians didn't want a balanced budget though. The CPC defeat in 2015 was essentially a message that the Canadian public didn't want to save, they wanted to spend and spend they have. Hindsight tells me this was a poor decision by the shareholders of this Country.