// B1 MILITARY SPENDING
Audit criticizes Defence Department for poor oversight
OTTAWA—The Department of National Defence has been called out for assigning less than three people to monitor the rollout of the Liberal government’s plan to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in new military equipment, troops and training.
The criticism is contained in an internal Defence Department audit and follows previous concerns that delays and other problems are slowing implementation of the plan, which was unveiled in 2017 and promised to spend $553 billion in the military over 20 years.
The plan known as Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE) is seen as critical for replacing much of the military’s aging equipment and adding new capabilities such as armed drones and defences in cyber and space that are needed for 21st-century warfare.
Yet the Defence Department earlier this year revealed that more than 100 of the roughly 300 capital projects associated with the plan were facing delays, with the delivery dates for some urgently needed equipment pushed several years into the future.
The audit report dated last November but only recently published online underscores the importance of monitoring and oversight to ensure the plan is properly implemented over the next two decades.
Auditors instead found “limited dedicated resources to coordinate and monitor implementation” of the plan, according to the report, with fewer than three full-time staff members specifically tasked with the job.
By comparison, there were 32 staff members assigned to oversee a cost-cutting exercise launched by the previous Conservative government in 2013 that aimed to eliminate $1.2 billion in annual waste within the department. That effort met with limited success.
“The capacity of the SSE implementation team is limited and as such, certain monitoring functions and independent validation of information are not being performed,” according to the audit report.
The auditors also flagged concerns that the lack of monitoring meant senior defence officials were not receiving clear and accurate information about the state of the plan, raising fears about bad decisions being made.
Defence Department spokesperson Jessica Lamirande said some of the issues identified by the auditors have been addressed while work on others is underway, though she did not say how many staff are now responsible for monitoring the plan.
“We welcome reviews of this nature, which help us find where adjustments and improvements can be made to ensure the continued efficient progress and oversight of the policy,” Lamirande said in an email.
“All of these audit recommendations are being addressed, with several already completed and the others well underway. In fact, some recommendations validated work that was already in progress.”
Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute expressed surprise at the auditors’ findings given senior officials had emphasized the importance of properly implementing the plan when it was released three years ago.
That emphasis included monitoring progress, which Perry described as fundamental for identifying problems and areas that need attention — such as delayed procurement projects — to ensure the military gets what it has been promised and needs.
The need to properly implement the plan and eliminate delays is even more important now, he added, given fears the federal government could start cutting defence spending as it seeks to find ways to pay for its COVID-19 emergency programs.
SEATTLE—Andrea Munoz Vargas says her immigration status is the last thing on her mind during 12-hour night shifts in a Wenatchee, Wash., hospital’s intensive care unit, where she works as a nurse caring for coronavirus patients. “I just need to stay focused.”
COVID-19 is so new that doctors need every piece of information they can get as they figure out what’s working and what’s not. So Munoz Vargas watches her patients carefully for any changes that could indicate their organs are failing. Or maybe that they’re improving enough to get off a ventilator.
She said her observations are crucial not only to helping her current patients but to building up a knowledge base for a possible second wave.
Lately, though, she’s begun to wonder how long she can continue working as a nurse — something that also might be of interest to the U.S. Supreme Court during the pandemic.
This month, the court is expected to rule on whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was legal. An Obama-era program, DACA gives quasi-legal status and work permits to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children.
The Mexican-born Munoz Vargas, who has been living in the U.S. since she was four, is a DACA recipient. If the program ends, the 28-year-old said: “The only thing I can think of is maybe going to Mexico and practising as a nurse.” If she stayed in the U.S., what options would she have? Possibly a fruit-packing shed, she said.
Roughly 16,000 DACA recipients in Washington — 650,000 in the U.S., as of December — will be affected by the longawaited decision. While polls show broad support for DACA recipients, the politics are polarized, as with everything related to immigration. And now the pandemic brings even more intensity to the debate and a new wrinkle for the court to consider.
“Health-care providers on the frontlines of our nation’s fight against COVID-19 rely significantly upon DACA recipients to perform essential work,” reads an April supplemental plaintiffs’ brief, atypically accepted by the court though oral arguments had happened months before.
There are no precise figures on how many work in health care. The Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization that analyzed American Community Survey data between 2016 and 2018, estimates there are 29,000 countrywide. As detailed by the plaintiffs’ brief to the Supreme
Court, they include “nurses, dentists, pharmacists, physician assistants, home health aides, technicians” and almost 200 medical students and doctors.
Many of plaintiffs’ arguments rest on something called the Administrative Procedure Act, which compels the government to consider all the consequences of rescinding an existing policy.
One thing the government didn’t take into account, DACA’s defenders say, is that the program’s young workers would be needed in the event of a pandemic — a scenario envisioned in a prescient amicus brief filed by the Association of American Medical Colleges in October.
The Trump administration has not responded to that issue, letting its broader arguments rest: that it had to act because the DACA program violates immigration law, and that in any case the court shouldn’t review an action that falls within the scope of executive authority.
The court’s finding, after three years with the program in limbo, will be momentous. But it is unlikely to be the last word.
If the court rules Trump moved to end the program improperly, he could try again with a more thorough process. And if the court vindicates Trump, it remains to be seen how he will move ahead, including whether he will try to deport those suddenly recast into a netherworld.
Congress could step in, as many have been urging, launching more expansive arguments that would surely touch on the pandemic.
There’s a moral dimension, said Luis Cortes Romero, a Kent lawyer who is one of dozens representing plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case. Ending DACA would be “turning your back on people who really saved this country when it needed it the most.”
The 31-year-old is himself both a DACA recipient and an essential worker, continuing to meet with clients and attend court hearings at the Northwest detention centre in Tacoma.
Activists in favour of sharp curbs on immigration, in contrast, see the pandemic as irrelevant. The number of DACA recipients in health care is a “tiny” share of the workforce in the field, said Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA. They are not indispensable, he added, because “there are a gigantic number of health-care workers who have been laid off.”
Munoz Vargas said that if she had to, she could work in a packing shed.
“A lot of our people work there,” some without valid work permits. “It’s not like I consider it degrading work.”
She’s done it before, during high school summers, for 12 hours a day. “At least, I saw a finish line,” she said of her 16year-old self. As her unending future, that would be another thing entirely.