ArriveCan and Poilievre on Procurement

With yet another IT debacle discrediting government procurement, the Conservative leader hints at less process and fewer offsets.

Two procurement stories affecting defence were in the news this week.

First, the Auditor General released a damning report on the ArriveCan app. Although this isn’t a defence project, ArriveCan’s impact will be felt across the government. Along with the Pheonix pay system, ArriveCan will surely linger in officials’ minds as they continue to update Canada’s information technology (IT) systems. ArriveCan will further spook jittery ministers about IT projects, include those for national security and defence. Commentators, moreover, are already suggesting that ArriveCan may reflect a deeper rot in government procurement. We shouldn’t be surprised if ministers feel the same.

Because I have terrible timing, last week I suggested that we need higher trust and risk tolerance to improve defence procurement. In the aftermath of ArriveCan, those recommendations look downright silly. How can we ask politicians and the public to trust in procurement officials when we have scandals like ArriveCan? And why should we be more risk tolerant if it leads to scandals like these?

These are good questions. But we should take a step back here. We haven’t seen evidence that the problems that led to the ArriveCan fiasco are plaguing defence procurement. Defence projects have lots of issues, but thus far, proper record keeping and possible corruption aren’t among them. It would be a mistake to assume the worst about defence procurement because of mismanagement in another part of government.

As Sean Boots and Amanda Clark point out, furthermore, the response to ArriveCan shouldn’t be more oversight and more burdensome processes. If anything, existing oversight mechanisms and procedures in IT procurement contributed to the problem. Adding more oversight and process to defence procurement in reaction to ArriveCan would make even less sense. Let’s hope that ministers avoid that kind of kneejerk reaction.

We also saw Pierre Poilievre comment on defence spending and procurement this week. The Conservative leader indicated that he would ‘work toward’ the 2% of GDP target for defence spending if he forms government. This hedge aligns with the Conservatives’ focus on taming the deficit and debt, as I discussed here.

Poilievre also indicated that he would cut foreign aid and transfer the funds to the defence budget. That would help a future Conservative government meet the 2% target, but it won’t be enough. And, frankly, we should approach that pledge with caution. Poilievre may have a change of heart when he digs into the foreign aid budget and sees the various efforts and countries that would be hit by a sweeping cut.

On the defence procurement front, Poilievre stated that he’d cut ‘back office bureaucracy’. Based on his previous comments on red tape and gatekeepers, I take that to mean cuts to procedures and paperwork. I doubt that he’d reduce the number of procurement officials, since a lack of people is slowing down military acquisitions.

Poilievre further stated that: “We will get rid of the corruption and incompetence in our procurement: We are wasting billions of dollars profiting these defence contractors that should be used to get the best value for our troops and our taxpayers.” This comment is harder to interpret, but based on various conversations around town, my understanding is that Poilievre isn’t a fan of using defence procurement as a jobs program or economic development scheme. From what I’ve been told, he thinks Canada should simply buy the best equipment for the best price, full stop. Canadian companies who benefit from the existing industrial and technological benefits (ITB) program should probably be getting nervous, as a result. A Poilievre government might be prepared to focus defence procurement on, well, you know, defence.

Only time, and an election, will tell.