It’s more than passing strange, on the heels of a federal campaign in which defence and military procurement received only the barest notice, that this most fraught and costly area of public policy still isn’t consuming much oxygen. But this may soon change.

First up is prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau’s choice of defence minister. The chatter in industry circles in recent days has been about whether or not Andrew Leslie, former commanding general of the Canadian Army, gets the nod. He seems a shoo-in. But other Liberals could serve, including John McCallum, who was defence minister in the latter Chretien years, and Marc Garneau, a former combat systems engineer, naval captain and astronaut.

Leslie’s thinking is sure to inform the government’s defence policy. It has two main prongs: First, as he articulated in a report on military transformation in 2011, spending should be redirected from bureaucracy to weapons and warriors or, as he put it, "more teeth, less tail." Second, defence procurement needs to be more effective, responsive and timely.

The previous Conservative government’s national shipbuilding procurement strategy has not been going well. Though Arctic patrol ships are under construction on the East Coast at the Irving shipyard, results on the West Coast are less encouraging. Last spring, with the Harper government conscious of the delays that have plagued B.C.-based Seaspan Shipyards’ effort to build a series of smaller coast-guard vessels and, ultimately, two much larger naval supply ships and a three-season icebreaker, talks went ahead with Quebec-based Davie Shipyard for a stopgap. That program is on track and expected to provide the navy with a leased, converted tanker for use as an oiler and supply ship until new ones are built.

The question facing the Liberals will be whether to build new supply ships at all, or simply convert and lease more tankers for this purpose, which is far cheaper. The two big ships are budgeted to cost $2.6 billion, which is likely low-balling it; leasing is projected to cost between $35 million and $65 million a year, depending on the term length, plus $12 million for a trained crew. Davie’s projected timeline for conversion is 16 months, whereas new supply ships would not be ready until early in the next decade, at best.

Then there are the jets. Trudeau caused a stir in mid-campaign by pledging to scrap the star-crossed F-35 fighter purchase, invest in a cheaper fighter to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s aging CF-18s, and plow any savings into ramped-up naval procurement. The move caught the other two major parties off-guard and probably helped the Liberals win over more than a few disgruntled centrist Red Tories.

The difficulty, as always, is in the details. Though 65 F-35s are now unaffordable given the original $9-billion purchase envelope — the cost overruns and delays on this project are legendary, and the weak Canadian dollar does the rest — it’s unclear another aircraft would be a great deal cheaper. Maintenance and operating costs may be marginally lower with an aircraft that is less software-intensive than the F-35, but not to the tune of billions.

Which raises the question of whether the RCAF will get new fighters at all. The existing CF-18s have already been extended to 2025. The Liberals appear determined to end the RCAF’s participation in the aerial campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. They may decide it makes more sense to invest in state-of-the-art drones, which can stay aloft virtually around the clock and patrol vast swathes of Arctic territory at high altitudes, than to replace aging but still-serviceable manned fighters. In that event, there would savings in the billions, which could be redirected toward a navy in dire need of rapid, major investment.

Twitter.com/mdentandt