A report by CBC News reveals competing visions within the federal government on how to manage Canadian military procurement in the face of high-profile project failures and ongoing tensions between the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence. As the story reveals, one school of thought favours employing a “secretariat approach” that relies on arms-length independent experts:
CBC News has learned the government is now considering making the secretariat model permanent for all large purchases. This would effectively strip decision-making out of the hands of departmental bureaucrats and their ministers, and instead vest it in the hands of contracted third-party experts.
Ministers would still be responsible for the procurement, but outsiders would, in effect, decide which contract or purchase provided the best gear and at the best price.
It would aid in removing politics from procurement and insulate ministers from allegations of regional pork-barrelling.
The secretariat model is the favourite of senior staff inside the Public Works department, where it’s viewed as being easy to achieve because it requires only incremental change and not massive restructuring. It could also be implemented without legislative change.
However, the story also reports that the Department of National Defence favours a different option: the creation of its own specialized and independent procurement agency that focuses on technical requirements and is shielded from external interference:
This last option is preferred by military officials, who believe it would give them the best chance to ensure all new military equipment is selected with their preferences in mind.
Officers’ clubs in Ottawa are often filled with stories of good procurements going bad only after the bureaucrats at Public Works became involved, of political meddling that sometimes led to bad decision-making, and bad equipment built in a politically important region being foisted on soldiers.
Military types believe the best solution is to have an agency whose raison d’être is providing the defence equipment to the Defence department — not managing contracts.
The report concludes by citing an industry expert who notes that the failure to implement a clear approach with clear accountabilities has resulted in significant duplication of effort in relation to major military procurements.
