Let's talk about even more promises from Mark Carney

Mark is back for round two, and he's promising some big changes that surely we won't mess up.

As the road to election day starts to wind down, and we trudge to the official debates, the campaign trail continues to be a hot mess of policies and shots being fired.

Of course I have done well to keep put of the wider political news and discussion, amd I will choose to remain that way. This has undoubtedly been a hot election, and while I haven't had many in my life, it's certainly the hottest in my memory.

Yet the stakes are high, higher than ever before for someone like me, and the level of vitriol, while unwelcome is not unexpected. I digress though, none of you want to hear me rant on politics and such. You want to know if you should book an appointment with your therapist over the usual defence platform fuckery.

For an election where defence and sovereignty have been invoked at almost every possible turn, the actual policy announcements have been minimal.

This isnt to say they haven't been detailed in their own regards, but for a topic seen as such an improtance it's amazing how little weve heard from either party on their detailed plans.

That of course changed this weekend, with the previously discussed Conservative platform on Veterans reform, and now a new slate of announcements from Mark Carney.

We knew the Liberals were going to have at least one more stop related to defence before the platform dropped. They said so themselves at the last one! Of course this is cutting it very close, but at least they stuck to it.

Mark Carney was at Bombardier in Dorval today for this announcement. It is primarily focused on the defence industry and procurement policy, with a focus on building capacity and expanding to new markets.

There is a lot to unpack here, so let me start by going down the list of announcements and what was said:

• The Liberal government will establish the Defence Procurement Agency, modernize defence procurement rules and amending legislation and regulations as required, to centralize expertise from across government and streamline the way we buy equipment for the military.

• The Carney government, to this effect, will also commit to buying Canadian whenever it makes sense and prioritizing Canadian raw materials such as steel, aluminum, and critical minerals.

• The liberals will also establish the Bureau of Research, Engineering and Advanced Leadership in Science or BOREALIS. This agency will focus on developing Canadian solutions in areas such as AI, quantum computing, cybersecurity, and other advanced fields.

• The Carney government will also develop a new export strategy for defence, while pushing for Canada's continued participation in ReArm Europe, and pivoting to focus on diversifying from the United States.

• Carney addresses concerns that putting the F35 on the table might put Canadian companies at risk of retaliation. He reiterates that there is no intention to cause that, but that there is a shift in the relationship. He says there is big opportunity to maximize economic benefit. He continues with bringing up plans for comprehensive negotiations on the US-Canadian relationship after the election, and how Canada stands to gain with a Made-In-Canada focus. He calls the situation fluid. He says that there is a path to integration that benefits both of us.

• On the Road to 2%, Carney reiterates as he has said before that he does not look at percentages, but on capabilities. To this effect he says something very interesting, that he believes spending is likely to rise beyond 2% if all comes together.

Of course there is absolutely a lot to unpack here, with many things providing little detail, we can only speculate about what they are envisioning.

Let's start with the big one, the DPA. We dont get any details on what this will look like or what changes are being examined. Based off past talks ive had, the concept is VERY similar to Australia's CASG. In fact, a lot of this policy can be looked at aligning well with our Aussie brothers.

How does this organization exactly work? Well we dont know, besides a very broad announcement on reform. How does this balance out the many stakeholders, such as PSPC, ADM(MAT), TB and ISED? How will they all be included in the process?

I dont mean to sound rude, but keeping the same system in a place severely limits what the DPA can do, no matter how much power you give them. We can debate if a single agency is the best bet, but if you're going to do it, then you need to go all in.

The same with keeping the current ITB system, something Carneys own government has admitted is ineffective and to easy to game. Will the Carney government, with a renewed focus on Canadian production fall into the same hole under the promise of economic benefit?

We can't really answer these questions because we have no details, but it highlights my biggest concern - that we won't go all in on this, and in turn make the process worse.

Using CASG is a great base, because it's own history was a long, hard struggle for Australia to create a system that worked from the ashes of the DMO, Australia's original attempt to merge defence procurement under a single banner.

While the DMO did help things, and created the path to a better system, it also struggled with balancing demands, accountability, and creating the organizational systems to handle these often complex amd expensive project.

It took over a decade for the DMO to find its own, and that includes its eventual reform into the modern CASG. To quote the 2015 First Priciples Review:

The current organisational model and processes are complicated, slow and inefficient in an environment which requires simplicity, greater agility and timely delivery. Waste, inefficiency and rework are palpable. Defence is suffering from a proliferation of structures, processes and systems with unclear accountabilities (emphasis added). These in turn cause institutionalised waste, delayed decisions, flawed execution, duplication, a change-resistant bureaucracy, over-escalation of issues for decision and low engagement levels amongst employees. Previous reviews and interviews with stakeholders indicate Defence operates as a loose federation where the individual parts from the highest levels, then down and across the organisation, are strongly protective of their turf and see themselves meriting more favour than other parts of the department. The centre is weak and not sufficiently strategic

This longstanding struggle is something we need to take urgency care to avoid, especially in a time where we have dozens of projects on the docket, and a growing need to get contracts signed ASAP.

We can't afford to wait on reviews and studies, along with the inevitable slow transition process to start getting things done. Nor can we hope that the current system can wait and cope without some sort of immediate reforms.

That might sound fairly radical, and it won't be easy. It will take years of capacity building, along with tough choices to be made from a government that is historically advertise to major risk.

There are small things that can be done, such as raising CAFs spending authority to $100m, as has been suggested many a time, is an example of a small step that can help free up the backlog of minor projects, while giving CAF some extra capability to procure the small ticket items they need on a sustained basis without having to go through the Treasury Board.

I will say though that the tear it down mentality is something that we need to take care to mitigate in planning. While it seems easy to take organizations like PSPC and ISED out of the process, we need to take care to not fall into the same trap as the Aussie.

Throwing out these organizations on quick whim loses out of the institutional knowledge, processes, and structure without developing a proper, functioning replacement. It also risks overwhelming the nee system far to quickly into its life.

There are much needed reforms that need to be done immediately, as we build up to the hypothetical DPA, which I do support, but it worries me greatly in the hands of people whom have constantly failed to properly reform and modernize the current system.

It is incredibly easy to mess this up, and inevitably make this process worse than it started. The risk of adding another layer of ineffective bureaucracy to a system full of it is something that, at such a critical time, we have to ask if we're willing to take the risk on?

I should talk about this separately, when my thoughts are more collected. I dont want to plug this up eith discussion on procurement reform. I also won't talk about the Buy-Canadian policy that the Csrney government has adopted. I have an entire piece on production that dives deep into that.

I will take a moment to talk about BOREALIS. A few of you might remember a previous promise along this lines from the Liberal government in CARPA, Canada's own answer to DARPA, complete with a legally distinct name.

Of course CARPA, along with many election promises on defence, fell through the cracks and was quickly forgotten. Why? I dont know. Budgetary reasons? Lack of care? Take your pick.

BOREALIS seems to fall along those lines, but has a more clear mandate when compared to the single sentence of CARPA. It also has a far nicer name.

Now, where does BOREALIS get its authority? We dont know. How does it compare to DRDC, and how much overlap will it have? We dont know. There is very clearly two distinct mandates if we assume BOREALIS takes over a certain amount of tasks from DRDC.

That is a wait and see scenario, as I stand that DRDC itself needs reform in itself to better translate it's work to actual solutions, something it struggles with. I will also note that DRDC is not a traditional research organization as we know it, while BOREALIS takes that more traditional role, at least to how it was described.

My biggest concern is having two competing organizations trying to do the same thing, and inevitably fighting for funding. We need to ensure that both BOREALIS and DRDC, if allowed to coexist, are not in competition.

I believe there are ways to do that, and that both organizations can find a place to coexist with some reasonable reform, if needed, though I admit I think that have one singular organization is preferable.

There was a lot of big chances presented here, and a lot of the usual promises dangled year after year. I am of course supportive of these efforts, as always, but incredibly hesitant to trust anyone to carry them out.

I also question the commitment of those in charge to take the steps needed without falling into using defence as a reward to riding or cheap economic development. It is something I have questioned Liberals on to no avail.

I am skeptical, and entrusting, but I am hopeful that we can extend these properly. Both the DPA and BOREALIS are needed reforms to me, and while I dont agree on all their mandate or execution, I am just happy to see them brought to policy.

On that note, I will also briefly address the two percent remarks. I want to let it known that this is not policy, but merely mention that, if all projects were funded properly as planned, that defence spending would likely rise beyond two percent of GDP, but it isnt a commitment to sustain funding levels beyond that, nor is there commitment beyond two percent before 2030.

I await the Conservatives to raise more of their policy, something they have been very quiet on, a disappointment given we are teo days until the federal debates.

Oh well, we take what we can get, and await the release of platforms, something that we should see before Friday. That will be fun to cover!