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....

 

[MilEME09]

So other than some LPO, what ‘procurement’ is DND actually allowed to do? I mean as opposed to what a 100% civilian staffed department that has….you know…the word ‘Procurement’ in its title…

If only the Government had come to know that major capital project related procurement is problematic before this week…

maybe military procurement needs it's own department? no TB or anyone else. just one department to overlook it all, spend it all, etc

 

[FJAG]

How 7 of our Allies are moving forward.

Seven European nations have increased defense budgets in one month. Who will be next? - Breaking Defense

Germany, Belgium, Romania, Italy, Poland, Norway and Sweden have all pledged to increase defense spending since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

breakingdefense.com

At this rate they're gonna kick us out like the US, the UK and Australia have.

 

[OldSolduer]

maybe military procurement needs it's own department? no TB or anyone else. just one department to overlook it all, spend it all, etc

I think you still need competent oversight of some sort.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm going to suggest the government does something absolutely insane.

Fix the procurement process.

 

[KevinB]

Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.

When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.

Down here there is a Combat Requirements course that both green suiters and GS Civilians can take.
It’s designed to make people understand how requirements are supposed to be written, and how to turn them into programs.
The USN and USAF have similar programs for big ticket items, the Army course deals with smaller things like small arms, STANO etc - generally items that are less than several hundred k each.

Each service then prioritizes it’s list and funds them, asking congress for more money if they need it.

Realistically it should be pretty easy for the CAF to ask each service to do the same.
The CAF seems risk adverse to go to the government and say we need 67B for these things. Here are the priorities by service….

The government can say to the CAF pound sand you get 28B only sort it out.

The CAF seems at times to relish being an underfunded stepchild.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Explain to me how an infantry officer is trained to understand procurement.

When the CAF insists on inserting military personnel who are at best enthusiastic amateurs into procurement, results suffer.

Exactly.

It's long been thought in my trade that procurement should be removed and made its own separate trade with its own officer's.

Generally we do procurement on a much less grand scale. But it would create the foundation for a competent, dedicated, professional procurement corps, if you will. Or it should anyways, who knows what bastardized form we'd come up with.

 

[McG]

Imagine if we had these things called aptitude tests and this other thing called, Tech Staff, which we didn't pay complete lip service to.

Btw, I used to work for an Infantry Officer who was #1 in Mech Eng at UofT. They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.

Engineering ≠ Procurement

The tech staff program prepares people to be requirements staff who are a little harder for corporate sales reps to snow. Graduates can still have no idea how to run a capital project.

The Army does need to do better at employing people in the role after the training. Most officer occupations seemed good at that, though the infantry had a tendency to always send someone to the school where they may or may not have been employed as a “tech Adjt.” The WO & MWO for the most part went on to do anything but tech jobs.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Engineering ≠ Procurement

The tech staff program prepares people to be requirements staff who are a little harder for corporate sales reps to snow. Graduates can still have no idea how to run a capital project.

We have an issue with this. Our SC and Procurement is littered with Engineers.

 

[ArmyRick]

So this budget still shows the Liberals do NOT take defence seriously. At all. Notta.

Add in a dose of NDP and it becomes downright clownish.

I wonder how many average Canadians (especially Trudeau cult worshippers) realize Canada went from a respected nation globally to a laughing stock that most other countries say "whatever, Canada"

 

[Edward Campbell]

It could be God himself as the CDS that PMO would not trust him.

See this, please, which I wrote about 15 years ago: General versus Economist

As far as I can see, nothing has changed.

-----
P.S. I knew the general, but not well; I worked for the economist ~ once or twice directly, on projects he initiated.

 

[WLSC]

See this, please, which I wrote about 15 years ago: General versus Economist

As far as I can see, nothing has changed.

-----
P.S. I knew the general, but not well; I worked for the economist ~ once or twice directly, on projects he initiated.

I understand what you wrote however this is not M. Harper. He vision of the federal government is not in line with what the founding fathers layed out. The results is 5Eyes as become the 4Eyes and we are now a burden to our allies and he doesn’t care. DND is a nuisance for is great goal.

 

[calculus]

The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented new capabilities. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these new capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is resigned to it, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding at this time. This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

 

[Furniture]

The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented new capabilities. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these new capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is resigned to it, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding at this time. This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

To be clear, the current government won't spend more on defence, because the government doesn't have a policy that justifies the spending, when it was the current government that gave us our current policy?

Sounds like Ottawa thinking... If SSE Mk II gets pushed back far enough, Canadians won't care about defence anymore, so more money for feel good projects.

 

[WLSC]

The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented new capabilities. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these new capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP. Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is resigned to it, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding at this time. This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

And starting with SSE could not have been a good policy ?

 

[Good2Golf]

The story circulating around the office is the Minister was presented with a number of options to get to 2%, but most of them represented new capabilities. They realized that they were hamstrung by their own bureaucratic processes in that they didn't have a vehicle to raise new projects against, that vehicle being a policy clearly outlining the need for these new capabilities. So, DND was sent packing with direction to get SSE updated, and to do it ASAP.

That fits perfectly with the current Government’s policy of gaslighting its enemies…

Again, this is third hand, but what we were told is the government was quite willing to jack up defence spending, and in fact is resigned to it, but felt that without a policy to justify where the extra moneys would go, they could not commit any large amounts of additional funding at this time.

The word you’re looking for is “excuse.”

This makes sense to me, having worked in government for many years at a level where budgets get set, so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

Didn’t stop them buying a couple of Bombardier Challeneger 605s without paperwork…we’ll, Requisition through PWGSC aside.

This government will do everything it can to not leak money from the vote-supportive social programs.

Folks like to say it’s DNDs problem to solve, and most everyone conveniently un-remembers the many times that DND had set requirements and identified capabilities needed, then politics swung in and cancelled/redirected/etc. and when things invariably went to crap, pointed at DND as incompetent. EH-101…Cormorant capped at $650M soma search helicopter wasn’t even fitted with a FLIR system, ILTIS, LSVW, ships delayed and delayed and delayed, Cyclone directed by government to save embarrassment of Chretien’s legacy, F-18 replacement debacle even though government initially described joining the JSF program as being a program logic, and get the aircraft the multinational program finally selects, pistol not yet replacement…there is a difference between civilian control of the military, which we should all agree is the correct thing, and politically-driven use of Defence as a cash distribution tool with op reqr a tertiary outcome.

The latest (prove you can do things ‘properly’ before we give you more money) media-line just proves that the Government will do anything in its power to keep the foot on The neck of meaningful Defence investment.

Kabuki Theatre at its best…

 

[dimsum]

They also went to Tech Staff but then basically never used any of it because the Army felt no need to employ this individual in that capacity.

FFS.

I'm of the opinion that if someone goes to Army Tech Staff or the RCAF Aerospace Studies Program (or whatever the RCN equiv is), their next posting should be pre-set as a project SME. They should know where they are going pretty much from the start of the course, if not the middle, so they can focus their research papers on that field.

Then, they should have the option to leave the operational world should they wish (change to 00000 Tech Staff or something like that) and focus on using their knowledge/skills.

I know of some ASP grads who also have never used any of it because the RCAF needed line drivers. A waste both for the person who just spent a year learning some pretty important and interesting things, and the institution for footing the bill and losing said person for a year.

 

[Underway]

And starting with SSE could not have been a good policy ?

I'll channel my inner Randy Carlile here "It's fine... just fine". Certainly better than what we were working with the 10-12 years before it was released. Despite the language used it spells out defense priorities with enough direction that the CAF could get to work. It needs to be better though. It needs enough juice to get us past just treading water.
__________________________________________________________

I was super pissed with the budget's military side. I was more surprised at the cutback in the deficit and pleasantly surprised at that. This budget will not exacerbate inflation either which was a key concern of mine. Being a fiscal conservative and pro-military spender was forcing me to choose mom or dad's house in the divorce. In my pain and confusion, I'll just lash out here at you folks!

@Edward Campbell and @calculus I get exactly what you are saying regarding finance not being comfortable with DND's capacity to spend what would be a windfall of cash. There is no way we could spend it over the next year. That sort of increase needs to be planned out.

I would not be surprised if a number of projects on the books are pushed ahead faster this year. It can be done if the light and heat get put on. Nor would I be surprised if the F35 deal gets pushed as the big-spending ticket this year. The budget I don't think accounts for that specifically and we all know governments add lines through the year.

I also expect project offices to be stood up or fleshed out for some long-suffering thorns. NORAD site refurb/replacement. Submarines. MCDV replacement. And a whole hockey sock of army items that are on the books drip torturing themselves through the procurement process (ATGM and Comms being top of the list) once SSE is updated... with a plan.

If Euro security is still a concern next budget the groundwork hopefully will have been laid. My biggest concern is that we (Canada) may be numb to Ukraine by then and the moment may have passed to get the big payout. Europe won't be though, this is their 9-11 movement when the entire world changed.

 

[WLSC]

I'll channel my inner Randy Carlile here "It's fine... just fine". Certainly better than what we were working with the 10-12 years before it was released. Despite the language used it spells out defense priorities with enough direction that the CAF could get to work. It needs to be better though. It needs enough juice to get us past just treading water.
__________________________________________________________

I was super pissed with the budget's military side. I was more surprised at the cutback in the deficit and pleasantly surprised at that. This budget will not exacerbate inflation either which was a key concern of mine. Being a fiscal conservative and pro-military spender was forcing me to choose mom or dad's house in the divorce. In my pain and confusion, I'll just lash out here at you folks!

@Edward Campbell and @calculus I get exactly what you are saying regarding finance not being comfortable with DND's capacity to spend what would be a windfall of cash. There is no way we could spend it over the next year. That sort of increase needs to be planned out.

I would not be surprised if a number of projects on the books are pushed ahead faster this year. It can be done if the light and heat get put on. Nor would I be surprised if the F35 deal gets pushed as the big-spending ticket this year. The budget I don't think accounts for that specifically and we all know governments add lines through the year.

I also expect project offices to be stood up or fleshed out for some long-suffering thorns. NORAD site refurb/replacement. Submarines. MCDV replacement. And a whole hockey sock of army items that are on the books drip torturing themselves through the procurement process (ATGM and Comms being top of the list) once SSE is updated... with a plan.

If Euro security is still a concern next budget the groundwork hopefully will have been laid. My biggest concern is that we (Canada) may be numb to Ukraine by then and the moment may have passed to get the big payout. Europe won't be though, this is their 9-11 movement when the entire world changed.

Has long procurement is not align with capabilities, we’ll have nothing except reliving the Groundhog Day. This mean a dedicated DND/CAF team. The culture change on the leadership part is very much needed but I got the feeling it’s the unwritten conditions for us to have some influence over are own destiny.

So the way I see it, no procurement reform until the change is done at the PMO taste.

 

[ueo]

I think you still need competent oversight of some sort.

Key word Competant.

 

[Jarnhamar]

,so I feel there is still hope that we will see a good boost once SSE mk 2 gets approved.

I think you mean SSE&I

That's a clever sounding rumor but the government knows exactly where the problem and has done nothing to fix it.

15 years and 100 million dollars to buy a handgun.

Lets call a spade a spade.