During the recent federal election, the issue of considering a new Defence Procurement Agency or DPA surfaced again.
The Liberals made such an organization part of their defence platform this time around as part of their plan to improve military procurement.
While positive outcomes could result from a new organizational structure, simply installing one will not in and of itself create an efficient procurement model. It most certainly will not address in any substantive manner why taxpayers pay far too much to acquire the defence capabilities Canada needs to protect our sovereign interests in a world that has become increasingly unstable in recent years.
It appears that, in many cases, Canada pays more per unit of capability to satisfy its defence needs than most of its allies. Unfortunately, though quite logically, this phenomenon has effectively shrunk the size of our armed forces as the number of platforms we can afford to acquire continues to dwindle due to high costs.
While this approach can create short-term jobs, they are ultimately unsustainable since there is no international market for our higher-priced solutions. This is not the direction in which Canada should be headed.
Before Canada decides to move ahead with a new procurement agency, it should assemble a “smart persons” panel or forum to thoroughly review the existing system and establish the mandate and objectives of whatever type of organization results from said review. Such a review group must be composed of people from the public and private sector with significant experience, not skewed with staff whose procurement experience primarily consists of exposure to the Canadian “way”.
[…]
See Also:
(1) Refugee advocates set to challenge Canada’s border pact with U.S. in Federal Court
(2) Alberta separation wouldn’t solve problem of landlocked oil: expert
Refugee advocates and lawyers are taking the federal government to court Monday to argue that Canada should allow asylum claimants to seek protection at all official land border crossings because, they say, the United States is no longer a safe country for refugees.
Bull f’ing shit. It’s a perfectly safe country for legitimate refugees. The big problem for the USA is the same BIG problem for Canada. The vast majority of refugees are not refugees at all. They are foreign invaders. Illegal border jumpers. They do not come here seeking what used to be the American (or Canadian dream). That being a burning desire to become a member of a society that they admire for its morals, the rule of law, safety and security, the opportunity to prosper and contribute in a meaningful way to the better meant of their ‘new family’. Let’s not forget a desire to assimilate and accept our culture and traditions. Again, just likes generation of ‘immigrants’ did. Rarely for those reasons or ‘dreams’. No, they come here for the freebees. Trump is not making America less safe for refugees, he is making it less of a patsy. That is no excuse for waving all of the refugee imposters exposed by the U.S. system into Canada and declaring them magically bonified.
When did a controlled highly successful immigration system become an increasingly uncontrollable globalists dream of open orders to swamp the west and change our culture from ours to theirs. With the acceptance of the United Nations refugee program. Today the UN tells Canada how many refugees we must take in each years. In reality there is no ‘quota’. In reality we take in as many as show up, we turn nobody away. Even when via investigation they are exposed as frauds, we still don’t deport them because except for very rare (emphasis on rare) we legally can’t. We (the west) surrendered our sovereignty the day we signed on that dotted line.
The UN representative says Quebec can and should accept more refugees. Quebec waves the Notwithstanding Clause and tells the UN (and the ROC if need be) to go f**k itself. You can say one thing for Quebec that you can’t say for the Canadian government. It stands up for ‘it’s own people’ and whoever doesn’t like it can just shove it as well.