Canada announces new military package for Ukraine after Russian missile attacks

On the same subject

• 

  March 15, 2021 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  None

• 

  December 27, 2018 | Local, Naval

  Feds, Irving ask trade tribunal to toss challenge to warship contract

  By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press — Dec 25 2018 OTTAWA — The federal government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding are asking a trade tribunal to throw out a challenge to their handling of a high-stakes competition to design the navy's new $60-billion fleet of warships. In separate submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the federal procurement department and Irving say the challenge filed by Alion Science and Technology of Virginia does not meet the requirements for a tribunal hearing. Alion was one of three companies, along with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Spanish firm Navantia, vying to design the new warships, which are to be built by Irving and serve as the navy's backbone for most of this century. While Lockheed was selected as the preferred bidder and is negotiating a final design contract with the government and Irving, Alion alleges the company's design did not meet the navy's requirements and should have been disqualified. Two of those requirements related to the ship's speed, Alion alleged, while the third related to the number of crew berths. Alion has asked both the trade tribunal and the Federal Court to stop any deal with Lockheed. But the government and Irving say the contract is exempt from normal trade laws, which the tribunal is charged with enforcing, because of a special "national security exception," meaning there is "no jurisdiction for the tribunal to conduct an inquiry." Another reason the challenge should be quashed, they argue, is that Alion is not a Canadian company, which is a requirement for being able to ask the tribunal to consider a complaint. Alion's challenge has been formally filed by its Canadian subsidiary, but the government and Irving say that subsidiary was never actually qualified to be a bidder in the competition — only its American parent. The responses from the government and Irving are the latest twist in the largest military purchase in Canadian history, which will see 15 new warships built to replace the navy's 12 aging Halifax-class frigates and three already-retired Iroquois-class destroyers. The trade tribunal ordered the government last month not to award a final contract to Lockheed until it had investigated Alion's complaint, but rescinded the order after a senior procurement official warned that the deal was "urgent." The procurement department has not explained why the deal is urgent. Lockheed's bid was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016. The federal government had originally said it wanted a "mature design" for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy. But the first Type 26 frigates, upon which Lockheed's proposal was based, are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation. There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26's favour because of Irving's connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada. Irving, which worked with the federal government to pick the top design, also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy's new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships. That 35-year contract ended up going to another company. Irving and the federal government have repeatedly rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used a variety of firewalls and safeguards to ensure the choice was completely fair. But industry insiders had long warned that Lockheed's selection as the top bidder, combined with numerous changes to the requirements and competition terms after it was launched — including a number of deadline extensions — would spark lawsuits. Government officials acknowledged last month the threat of legal action, which has become a favourite tactic for companies that lose defence contracts, but expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such an attack. —Follow @leeberthiaume on Twitter. Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/12/25/feds-irving-ask-trade-tribunal-to-toss-challenge-to-warship-contract-2/#.XCT7OFxKjIU

• 

  January 6, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Canada: Defence Procurement Canada: Is It ‘Back To The Future' For Defence Procurement?

  Article by Marcia Mills and Paul Burbank Capital Perspectives Last Updated: January 3 2020 The issues surrounding defence acquisition took a backseat in the run up to the 2019 federal election. As noted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, this occurred despite the fact that two of the largest defence procurements in Canadian history – the Canadian Surface Combatants (warships) project and the Future Fighter Capability Program (fighter jets) – are in active procurement mode, spending is falling short of forecast and roughly 70 per cent of the approved projects under the 2017 implementation of the Strong, Secure, Engaged Defence Policy have seen schedule delays 1. Canadian defence procurement is a many-layered affair. Spread across three departments and a central agency (the Department of National Defence; Public Procurement and Services Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development; and Treasury Board, respectively), the need to coordinate and align this much bureaucracy is often viewed as one of the significant problems in defence procurement. The two main political parties offered very different solutions to these issues during the election, but provided few details. The Platforms The Conservatives focused on the need to "de-politicize" the procurement process, which would in turn deliver greater value for money and better resources for the Canadian military. To accomplish this, new oversight mechanisms, both in Cabinet and in the Privy Council Office, would be created. 2 Major defence procurements are already subject to oversight by the Defence Procurement Secretariat, a Deputy Ministers Governance Committee and a Ministers Working Group. It is not entirely clear how additional layers of oversight would reduce delay and improve efficiencies, unless the new mechanisms replaced all or some of the current oversight layers. The Liberal platform included a portion on defence procurement that pointed to the creation of "Defence Procurement Canada," to ensure defence projects were delivered on time and with greater transparency. The structure of Defence Procurement Canada was not explained. A bit of speculation is now in order as to what this could mean for defence procurement. The New Cabinet The Liberals formed a minority government and announced their new Cabinet on Nov. 20. While the Ministers of Defence (Harjit Sajjan) and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (Navdeep Bains) remain the same, Treasury Board has a new President and Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) has a new Minister – Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand, respectively. Treasury Board President Duclos moves from a smaller, specific portfolio within Employment and Social Development Canada to now preside over one of the federal government's most powerful central agencies and cabinet committees. He will have a considerable role in ensuring effective financial management and government spending. Minister Anand is a new face in Cabinet and a first-time Member of Parliament for the riding of Oakville, Ont. She is assuming responsibility for, amongst other things, the two single largest purchasing organizations in the federal government (PSPC and Shared Services Canada (SSC)). Going Forward Defence procurement in Canada follows a general ebb and flow – resources are increased during times of conflict and are reduced in times of peace. Restructuring occurs in response to these influences, as well as perceived redundancies, desired efficiencies and the odd scandal or two. Various Minsters and departments have been responsible for defence procurement and production over the past 100 years, including boards or commissions set up during times of war. A new independent department for defence procurement would result in three different departments (SSC, PSPC and the Defence Procurement Canada) managing the vast majority of federal acquisition. This approach would be similar to the stand up of the Department of Defence Production in the '50s. The DDP had a short life. Established in 1951, it was expanded to become the central purchasing organization in 1963 as an interim measure, then disbanded in 1969 with the establishment of the Department of Supply and Services. The amalgamations of various entities continued until 1993, with the creation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services (a.k.a. PSPC). PSPC operates as a central purchasing agent for the government, with exclusive authority under the Defence Production Act to acquire defence supplies for DND. If Defence Procurement Canada is to exist as a departmental corporation or agency, the government would want to launch this new entity early in its mandate so that it can lay claim to any degree of efficiency or success achieved. If so, the new entity would likely remain within PSPC, as the Minister has existing statutory authority to create a supporting departmental corporation or agency under the Defence Production Act. Creating this entity outside of PSPC's current authority would require a significant reorganization of the public service and change to the operations of government of a magnitude greater than that required to establish Shared Services Canada – this would include deciding whether to maintain or decentralize the functions of defence procurement and defence production, as well as significant statutory amendments to provide or reduce, as required, the authority of all Ministers involved. Ministerial mandate letters, which were released in mid-December, shed no additional light on the specific operational structure or corporate identity that Defence Procurement Canada is expected to take. Notable in these letters, however, is a prevailing theme: Minister Anand has the clear responsibility for bringing forward options to Cabinet, but that effort will be supported by a host of respected, senior ministers, including Minister Sajjan (National Defence), Minister Jordan (Fisheries & Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard), and Minister Bains (Innovation, Science and Industry). As all of these Ministries are already involved in defence procurement, their continued support is not surprising. Throughout the history of defence acquisition and production in Canada, large-scale reorganization has been predicated by one of three events: war, post-war reconstruction or scandal. Absent one of these triggers, a minority government may have little appetite (or be able to drum up support from any other party) to stand up a wholly new department, or even a departmental corporation or agency within PSPC itself, on the basis of efficiency and economy alone, particularly in light of the on-going Phoenix debacle and the continued issues at Shared Services Canada. As no new Minister for Defence Procurement Canada was named in the new Cabinet nor were any Additional Ministers within PSPC named for defence or Defence Procurement Canada, it appears that, at least for now, any defence acquisition reorganization is likely to remain on the backburner. Marcia Mills is procurement counsel with the Fasken Ottawa office and has 20+ years of private and public sector experience. She provides clients with legal and strategic advice for all aspects of government procurement, as well as advice on government policies and procurement processes. Paul Burbank is an associate with the Fasken Ottawa office. He works with the Communications Law group to provide advice on telecommunications and broadcasting in Canada. Paul also works with Fasken's Government Relations and Political Law group on strategy and compliance matters. Footnotes 1 The Defence Procurement Outlook for Canada's 43rd Parliament by David Perry, The Global Exchange, 2019 Volume XVII, Issue III; Canadian Global Affairs Institute 2 Global News: With billions at risk, federal parties promise to fix defence, procurement