There are paragraphs from the Glassco Commission's chapter on defence procurement that could have been written yesterday.
The chapter is worth re-reading as we move ahead with the Defence Investment Agency.
epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/...
@plagasse.bsky.social
Academic working on defence policy/procurement and executive power in Westminster states. I'm aware of the typos.
There are paragraphs from the Glassco Commission's chapter on defence procurement that could have been written yesterday.
The chapter is worth re-reading as we move ahead with the Defence Investment Agency.
epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/...
Thanks to David Borys for having me on Curious Canadian History to discuss defence procurement:
podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/c...
Would look better with a periwig.
06.10.2025 18:00 — 👍 10 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Désolé 😂
06.10.2025 15:05 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0close enough for joking purposes!
06.10.2025 15:00 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0New at In Defence of Westminster:
open.substack.com/pub/lagassep...
The govt can fall any day in Canada at the moment.
06.10.2025 14:01 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0I dont think the UK’s woes are about the system!
06.10.2025 13:36 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0So, how are we feeling about presidential systems?
#France #UnitedStates
NB, this post was inspired by the last CIEC’s wild interpretation of a ministerial
advisor, which ran contrary to a plain reading of the law.
Great post, on a topic I've taken some academic interest in.
06.10.2025 13:13 — 👍 2 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Thanks!
06.10.2025 13:04 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0New at In Defence of Westminster:
open.substack.com/pub/lagassep...
AI version:
“The DIA presents a unique opportunity. It is not just a organizational change; it is a strategic pivot in defence procurement.”
(Yes, that’s a joke.)
For the weekend crowd, my take on Canada’s new Defence Investment Agency.
open.substack.com/pub/philippe...
New at Debating Canadian Defence:
open.substack.com/pub/philippe...
New at Debating Canadian Defence:
open.substack.com/pub/philippe...
A few thoughts on Canada’s new Defence Investment Agency:
02.10.2025 13:03 — 👍 17 🔁 9 💬 3 📌 1Yep
30.09.2025 19:31 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0I don't want to be overwrought here or anything, but if there was a vessel of concern in the Arctic, say a Chinese science ship that is doing questionable stuff, that would be handled by NORAD fighter aircraft first.
30.09.2025 16:08 — 👍 34 🔁 5 💬 0 📌 0For those who are unawares, the Commander of NORAD is always an American and has operational control of Canadian NORAD forces.
That's not just some thing that we do. It's a treaty-level agreement.
How, exactly, do the Canadian Armed Forces deploy on operations with an ally who doesn't respect ROEs?
30.09.2025 14:40 — 👍 263 🔁 118 💬 16 📌 9Paging Lloyd Axworthy!
29.09.2025 16:15 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0As @stephaniecarvin.bsky.social points out, this is more rhetorical than anything else.
Still, it's interesting to see the shift from the talk of a values based foreign policy.
*NB idea that defence follows foreign policy doesn't really work. Far too much of defence policy is internally focused. It's better to see defence as a subset of national security and complementary with foreign policy.
29.09.2025 15:45 — 👍 12 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0It's often said that defence policy should flow from foreign policy in Canada.*
Now we have defence priorities leading foreign policy. Notable shift in framing.
New at Debating Canadian Defence:
open.substack.com/pub/philippe...
New at Debating Canadian Defence:
open.substack.com/pub/philippe...
Indeed...sigh
27.09.2025 01:33 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0