Recent events at home and abroad have led to questions regarding the state of defence procurement in Canada. It won’t come as a complete surprise to hear that it’s not going well. But current domestic and international dynamics present the federal government with a unique opportunity to finally fix this broken system.
The case for fixing defence procurement is as well known as it is old. And recent activity and Ministerial travel have been encouraging in this respect. Indeed, defence dollars rev up advanced manufacturing production lines and put more high-skilled employees to work, ultimately contributing to economic growth. It also dusts-off long overdue plans for necessary military upgrades. And, in a nod to our allies, it inches us closer to the ever-elusive NATO 2% commitment, which is more and more looking like the floor rather than ceiling.
To be fair, defence procurement is hard. It is complex, expensive, involves multiple stakeholders, and can be controversial. Throw in a dash of regionalism, a sprinkle of politics, and a heavy pour of war, and you can quickly find yourself in the soup. Crucially, it’s also not a vote mover, one reason for the Trudeau government’s ongoing reluctance to spend the necessary political capital to fix it.
And yet, untangling the defence procurement knot could act as a cudgel against those claiming ‘Canada is broken’, and help claw back politically homeless centrist voters. It would certainly provide Canadian businesses with a welcome boost of confidence at a precarious moment in the economic cycle.
But creaky defence procurement is not restricted to Canada. After decades of relative peace, many countries’ defence procurement muscles have atrophied. The task of arming Ukraine in its fight against Russia has only further exposed the West’s depleted military stock and out-of-date kit, while testing its commitment to the cause.
Fixing defence procurement in Canada isn’t sexy. But neither is war. But we are at an inflection point, the ground for change is fertile, and the political arguments have never been stronger. With that in mind, here are three tactics for the federal government to pursue if it wants to begin untying this Gordian knot.
1. Creation of a Defence Procurement Decision Group
Modelled on the government’s Incident Response Group (IRG), the Defence Procurement Decision Group (DPDG), would convene political and public service decision-makers on defence procurement, and task them with signing off on all +$50 million defence projects, then and there. Chaired, crucially, by the Prime Minister, the DPDG would short-circuit a frustratingly bureaucratic and linear defence procurement approval process wildly out-of-sync with today’s fast-paced, ever-changing defence and security landscape. Meetings would be brisk and decision-oriented, (similar to Budget tête-à-têtes between the Prime Minister and Finance Minister), held quarterly, with decisions carrying the same weight as a Cabinet-level decision.
Critics may scoff at yet another meeting for meeting’s sake, or at the horror of calendar alignment. Yet this type of meeting is already relatively common. During the ‘Free-dumb’ Convoy, Trudeau assembled the IRG to act as a sounding board for his eventual invocation of the Emergencies Act. Featuring key public safety focused Ministers and public servants, it proved a valuable platform for discussion and decision-making. The DPDG would offer the same usefulness at a time of significant, albeit less acute, crisis.
2. Adding monthly ‘defence-only’ Treasury Board Secretariat meetings
The Treasury Board Secretariat’s role in government is crucial, ensuring money being spent is done so properly. The breadth and velocity of the government’s recent spending on social programs has strained TBS’ capacity to allocate time to other departments, including National Defence, thereby contributing to spending lapses. Canada can no longer afford to fall behind in this respect.
Adding monthly defence-only Treasury Board meeting would go a long way to address this. Armed with a DPDG decision, big-dollar defence files could be discussed, risk-managed and signed off on without sliding back into the bureaucratic sludge. ‘Defence-only’ meetings would also act as forcing function for DND/CAF, PSPC and ISED to have their submissions ready to go. Finally, it signals to Canada’s defence industry that government is in fact willing to work together.
3. Public meetings between the federal government and Canada’s defence industry
Speaking of industry, if Canada is to have any chance of fixing defence procurement, relations between the Canadian defence sector and government must improve. Today, each side blames the other for the sorry state of affairs. Both are right. Government often struggles to match actions with words, while industry recoils in fear at the risk of jeopardizing its bottom line. To date, the two sides have stumbled through the frostiness. But with war in Europe, increasing domestic defence flare-ups, and worsening geopolitics, a new approach is needed.
To start, both sides must come to appreciate the other’s challenges, acknowledge progress requires cooperation, and recognize the scale of the opportunity. It’s time for frank discussion, in public, to air mutual wariness and put petty grievances aside. The result would be a healthier bottom-line for industry, a concrete political ‘win’ for government, and a moment of pride for Canadians.
Of course, implementation will be difficult. A single change to defence procurement requires spending political capital and staring down internal resistance. Making all three at once may break the system. But recent events offer both the need and opportunity to do so.
With buy-in and engagement from the Prime Minister, the machinery of government suddenly moves more quickly, is willing to absorb more risk and criticism, and eventually tilts towards action. If Canadians are starting to believe ‘everything is broken’, best to be seen as Mr. Fix It.