Military stories don't get much play in the media these days. So it was largely overlooked when Auditor General Sheila Fraser reported that the Canadian Forces lost out on $300 million in spending last year on badly needed equipment because of bureaucratic tie-ups at the Department of National Defence.

A few papers picked up on it, but most ignored it.

But the slippage at DND is key to understanding the argument between the Harper government and its critics as to whether the government is spending the money it must if it is going to resuscitate our badly overstretched military.

On the one hand, you have people like me and historian Jack Granatstein saying that while the Harper government has spent on its most obvious equipment needs, it isn't spending nearly enough to give Canadians the military they will need to protect them and advance their interests over the coming decades.

This is from a recent article by Dr. Granatstein:

"Money is going to be tight, the numbers of personnel will continue to be insufficient to do the required tasks and much of the military's equipment, while better in several areas than a few years ago, will continue its long, slow slide into obsolescence."

On the other side, you have Conservatives like Senator David Tkachuk (a fellow member of the Senate committee on national security and defence) arguing that his party is doing fine by the military, but that it is going to take time for the Harper government to make up for years of under-spending by Liberals.

Senator Tkachuk quotes Walter Natynczyk, chief of the defence staff, as saying that "defence funding in the next four to five years will increase at a rate faster than our capacity . . . to fully invest the additional funds across the four components for military capacity: personnel, capital, infrastructure and operational readiness."

Gen. Natynczyk did say that at one of our meetings in support of government policy. In the United States, military brass must by law report truthfully to Congress about the state of the military. In Canada, our generals are forbidden to make statements that contradict government policy.

Gen. Natynczyk was telling the truth to a point. But he omitted that the major reason the Canadian Forces can't spend all the money they are allocated is because they don't have the qualified personnel to navigate complicated procurement requests through the bureaucratic hoops. Nor did he say what the auditor general discovered--that the DND bureaucracy is too often inept at procurement.

The auditor general says they are part of a system that keeps finding ways of delaying approvals until funds allocated under one-year budgets lapse.

One hears rumours some bureaucrats even do this on purpose if they dislike a project. It's also possible they know that while the government likes to advertise it's willing to spend on military needs, it doesn't mind when it gets money back that isn't spent in time.

But maybe it's just lousy management. That is Fraser's best guess. Her report says that due to a lack of "accurate and timely" information for decision-makers, the department had $300 million left in the 2007-08 fiscal year that wasn't spent and could not be carried forward under government rules. (For some reason, these rules only allow one per cent of DND budgeted money to be carried forward, compared to five per cent for other departments).

If the government were really intent on giving its military leaders the personnel and equipment they need to defend Canadians and make life safer for their troops, it would respond quickly to the auditor general's report.

First, it would give DND more money to create a more sophisticated system of financial management, and it would also provide the navy, army and air force with money to hire qualified personnel to navigate that system.

Second, it would reduce the number of bureaucratic hoops the military needs to jump through to get its requisitions approved. Our committee examined the bureaucratic process for military procurements a few years ago, and it is just bizarre how many other government departments are allowed to stick their noses in and slow things down.

Third, the prime minister and the minister of defence would take a personal interest in acquisitions of importance to the well-being of the military, and put a cattle prod under the bureaucrats from time to time.

That happens every now and then--notably with the purchase of Chinook helicopters to move troops in Afghanistan in a way that is less vulnerable to roadside bombs. That intervention only came after the government had come under public criticism for not having replaced the Chinooks sold by the Mulroney government in the 1980s. It is remarkable how quickly funds can be allocated when the Prime Minister's Office is keen to get things moving.

But I am not expecting any quick responses to Fraser's report. The truth is that--at least so far -- this government has not shown itself to be much more willing than its Conservative and Liberal predecessors at giving Canadians the military they need now and will need in the future.

The committee has been told that after Canada's combat duty ends in Afghanistan, the army will probably have to turn down any more combat assignments overseas until it can rest and rehabilitate. That would mark two shutdowns in six years--unprecedented for any army representing any industrialized country. And the navy is in worse shape, but that's a story for another day.

Either the government is going to have to increase its modest plan to increase military spending by two per cent a year, or cease deploying troops when Canadians' best interests tell it they should be deployed. That's not a reasonable option for any government that wants to be taken seriously on the international scene, but it will be the only option left.

 

Senator Colin Kenny is Chair of The Senate Committee On National Security and Defence.

Recent Publications