Boeing Launchpad Canada

On the same subject

• 

  February 13, 2019 | Local, Other Defence

  Government of Canada announces call to launch intellectual property collective

  Pilot project will help Canadian companies reap the full benefits of IP to grow their business February 13, 2019 – Ottawa, Ontario When Canadian companies put intellectual property (IP) at the core of their business strategy, they are better positioned to grow and succeed. This is why the Government of Canada is making sure that our small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) have the tools and supports they need to expand their business and become more competitive. Today, the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, launched the Patent Collective pilot program to assist SMEs with their patent and other IP needs. Canadian entities that can gather a team with experience in delivering high-quality patent advice are invited to apply. The chosen applicant will receive $30 million in funding over four years to create a non-profit organization that will work with companies in a selected sector to help them use their IP more strategically. Announced as part of the five-year Intellectual Property Strategy, the pilot project will provide the Government with valuable insight into the IP issues faced by SMEs. The new collective will have an opportunity to shape how the program will support member businesses, customize services to suit clients' needs, and identify how best to support the strategic use of IP in scaling companies. Quotes “Intellectual property is at the core of innovative businesses. For Canada's economy to succeed, we need to ensure that companies of all sizes have the tools to grow, expand and become competitive global players. With this new patent initiative, we are providing small and medium-sized enterprises with the IP support they can use to build their business, boost economic growth and compete and win on the world stage.” – The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Quick facts The Intellectual Property Strategy was announced in Budget 2018. Interested applicants can visit Canada.ca/patent-collective. Small and medium-sized businesses that hold formal IP are three times more likely to engage in product innovation than those without IP. They are also two times more likely to engage in other types of innovation, four times more likely to export, and 64% more likely to be high growth. IP-intensive businesses pay 16% more, on average, than businesses with little or no IP. Businesses using IP in patent-intensive industries have about 8 to 10 times more revenues than those not using IP. Contacts Follow Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada on Twitter: @ISED_CA Dani Keenan Press Secretary Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development 343-291-1710 Media Relations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 343-291-1777 ic.mediarelations-mediasrelations.ic@canada.ca https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2019/02/government-of-canada-announces-call-to-launch-intellectual-property-collective.html

• 

  August 20, 2019 | Local, Aerospace

  Smol: Why Sweden is leagues ahead of Canada on fighter-jet technology

  With the election looming, the Liberal government has set in motion, at least on paper, its commitment to consider bids for the purchase of new fighter jets. Of course, how committed the government is to move ahead on its renewed commitment remains to be seen. Meanwhile, any Canadian truly committed to seeing a modern, well-equipped RCAF, supported by a capable military procurement program, should take special note of one of the top contenders to replace Canada's aging fleet of fighters: Sweden. This non-aligned country, approximately the size of Newfoundland and Labrador, with a population only slightly larger than that of Quebec, has not only succeeded in developing generations of fighter jets, but has seen impressive success in exporting them. Apart from Sweden, Saab's JAS 39 Gripen, the latest version released in 2016, is being used by the Czech Republic and Hungary within NATO. The governments of Brazil, South Africa and Thailand are also purchasing the aircraft. Other countries such as India, Botswana, Indonesia and the Philippines are seriously considering the Gripen. But instead of fretting about how much Canada's aging fighters stand to potentially be outdone by the air forces of the developing world, we should instead look squarely at how Sweden came to be a serious contender to arm and equip this country's emaciated airforce. We should instead look squarely at how Sweden came to be a serious contender to arm and equip this country's emaciated airforce. The answer lies in the national mindset of the two countries. Unlike Canada, and especially when it comes to defence, Sweden refuses to allow itself to fall into dependency status vis-à-vis Europe, NATO or any other military power. In other words, while they actively cooperate with NATO in the defence of Europe, they make it clear that the defence of Sweden is first and foremost a Swedish responsibility. It is why the Swedish army, navy and airforce use high-tech equipment, much of which is built by the Swedes themselves. It is why the Swedes supplement their advanced military technology with elaborate defence-in-depth war plans and civil defence policies. The manual, “If crisis or war comes,” has been recently mailed to every household in Sweden. By contrast, we Canadians have chosen a quasi-colonial mindset with respect to our defence, clearly reflected in our epically embarrassing procurement shortcomings and failures. For the last 60 years, beginning with the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, Canada has been falling into a pattern of dependency on the United States on all matters related to defence. Sweden, on the other hand, has remained committed to designing and developing much its own military aircraft, ships, submarines and army equipment. In the mid-1950s, both Canada and Sweden were working independently on their own advanced fighter aircraft. While Canada was working on the Arrow, the Swedish military and engineers were hard at work on the Draken, which came out the same year. The Draken had a similar delta wing design to the Arrow and was the first European-built fighter jet to break the sound barrier. But that is where the comparison ends; the two countries went on very different paths with respect to their airforces. Canada cancelled and destroyed its Arrow aircraft and took on second-rate Voodoo fighters from the United States. It is what we Canadians wanted, as no successive Conservative or Liberal government has since tried to “bring back the Arrow.” Sweden aggressively continued development of new fighter technology, replacing the Draken with the Viggen in the 1970s, while Canada continued to try to squeeze more life out of our then-aging fighter jets. In the 1980s, as Canada was finally taking on the U.S built F-18, Sweden was working on the first version of the modern Gripen. Of course, as had been well documented, the early Gripen had problems. But as with the Draken and Viggen, the Swedes, unlike Canada, stayed with their national fighter jet. Today, Canada can only dream what our military aircraft industry might have been like in 2019 if then-prime minister John Diefenbaker, with the tacit support of the opposition Liberals, had not cancelled the Arrow, accelerating our descent into military dependency on the United States and national impotence on military procurement. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/smol-why-sweden-is-leagues-ahead-of-canada-on-fighter-jet-technology

• 

  May 19, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  COVID-19 MAY WELL BE THE END OF THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES AS WE HAVE KNOWN THEM…AND OF OUR EFFECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY

  The lesson from this history is simple. Cutting defence spending in times of austerity is a bipartisan affair in Canada. This is owing less to politics than arithmetic. DND's budget –which typically ranges from 1/5 to 1/4 of total federal departmental discretionary spending –is too big to be excluded from any serious spending restraint initiative. This is well understood by Liberals, Conservatives and the Finance Department. The COVID-19 Recession and its Impact No one knows how deep or how long the COVID-19-induced recession will be. But every serious analyst agrees it will produce the sharpest drop in output since the Great Depression. The International Monetary Fund, for example, projects a 6.2 per cent annualized decline in GDP for Canada,1nearly double that of the 2009 recession. And already the government's fiscal response is without precedent and will lead to the largest deficit in postwar Canadian history (at least 10 per cent of GDP, or over $200 billion). This does not mean that Ottawa will snap into austerity mode next year. The economy will likely be too weak for that kind of action and cutting government spending is not in the Trudeau government's DNA to begin with... One big difference between now and the past is that there will be enormous pressure on Ottawa after the recession to boost spending in a wide range of areas which have been exposed in the pandemic. These include public health funding, medical research, pandemic prevention and mitigation, the social safety net, and industries particularly hard hit during the recession. There are also Liberal election campaign commitments from 2019 to honour –almost none of which had been implemented pre-pandemic –of which national defence is conspicuously absent. ...this could produce a perfect storm for Strong, Secure, Engaged (SSE). This was always a big risk associated with a defence policy that had its funding ramped up gradually over many years. As the Harper government amply demonstrated, it is relatively easy to reduce or eliminate the rate of planned increases to defence funding –the government took almost no flak for doing so in 2010. Making matters worse, DND has failed to come anywhere near meeting the spending trajectory profiled in SSE, as David Perry has analyzed thoroughly. Which means flattening DND's budget ramp is even more tempting for any government in austerity or even re-prioritization mode. Would a change in government matter here? Unlikely. While the Conservatives are more committed to national defence and the Canadian Armed Forces than the Liberals, they would likely see deficit reduction as their top priority, and it is virtually impossible to have meaningful expenditure restraint that doesn't involve national defence [what the Harper government did from 2010 on]. Conclusion Over the past generation, recessions and the fiscal consolidation that has followed them have had a seriously negative impact on DND's budget. The COVID-19 recession could be the most severe Canada has faced in at least 40 years. It has already resulted in the largest peacetime deficit in Canadian history. And, because of the pandemic, government priorities have changed radically overnight. The future for SSE and its associated funding does not look bright. National Defence probably has a year or two before the crunch hits. Now is therefore the time for strategic thinking and serious priority setting among the political, public service and miitary leadership to ensure that the 2020s don't become another decade of darkness. Eugene Lang is Adjunct Professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, and Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He was chief of staff to two ministers of National Defence in the Chrétien and Martin governments and served as an official in the Department of Finance. The 2020s most certainly will be “another decade of darkness”. It is not improbable that the Canadian military, if the Liberals win the next election, will effectively end up as a constabulary/militia force with domestic response to natural disasters of various sorts as its primary function along with very token commitments to UN peacekeeping missions. Bye bye to serious numbers of new RCAF fighters, to serious numbers of new RCN frigates, and to the needed large funding to renew NORAD's North Warning System [see this post: “So Will the Canadian Government Put Some Big Bucks into Modernizing NORAD's North Warning System?“]. And bye bye to any meaningful military participation in NATO. Canada will then finally be defenceless against help from the US ( the following quote is from the last sentence of this earlier CGAI paper's Executive Summary: “Throughout its 60-year existence, NORAD has been Canada's “defence against help.”). Any American administration will have no hesitation in demanding the use of Canadian territory and waters for its own defence purposes if our efforts fall well below what the US thinks necessary. US Air Force bases at Cold Lake, Yellowknife, Goose Bay and a US Navy one at St. John's anyone? Take a look at this as an example of an increasingly prevalent Canadian progressive view; and Justin Trudeau's “base” is progressive to the max: Spending $19 billion on fighter jets won't fight COVID-19 or climate change Instead of buying a new weapons system, the federal government should disarm and invest in a Green New Deal There it is. Plus earlier from Mr Lang: Is the “business Liberal” extinct? By the way the photo at the top of the post is of the Avro CF-100 Canuck interceptor, the first jet fighter developed in Canada–to defend against Soviet bombers...and US help. Mark Collins