Canada jumps closer to military-spending target thanks to COVID-19's economic damage

On the same subject

• 

  December 12, 2017 | Local, Aerospace

  Federal government to link ‘economic interests’ to bids for fighter jets

  DANIEL LEBLANC OTTAWA PUBLISHED 2 DAYS AGOUPDATED 2 DAYS AGO The federal government is vowing to make it harder for companies that harm Canada's "economic interests" to win major contracts, starting with the $26-billion competition to provide 88 new fighter jets to the Canadian Armed Forces. The new requirement will be fleshed out in coming months, with Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough acknowledging that it will include a mix of "objective and subjective elements." Officially, the new "economic impact test" will apply to all bidders in major competitions, with Ms. Qualtrough and Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains insisting the requirement complies with Canadian and international law. Still, the new test was quickly dubbed the "Boeing clause" as it comes in response to U.S.-based Boeing Co.'s unresolved trade dispute with Canada's Bombardier Inc. Boeing said last April that the Canadian plane maker used unfair government subsidies to clinch an important contract for 75 CS 100 planes to Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines at "absurdly low" sale prices. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said the trade dispute will affect Boeing's future dealings with the government, which is now giving itself leverage to fight back in disputes with foreign companies. "Anyone can apply, but we've been very clear with this new policy: If there is economic harm to Canada, if there's an impact on Canadian jobs, if there's an impact to some of the key sectors in the Canadian economy, you will be at a distinct disadvantage," Mr. Bains said at a news conference. The new test was announced as the federal government confirmed it has cancelled plans to buy 18 new Super Hornet fighter jets from Boeing. The government is buying second-hand Australian fighter jets as an "interim" measure to help Canada's fleet of CF-18s to meet the country's international obligations. Defence analyst David Perry said the new economic impact test stands to create a new layer of complexity in military procurements that are already beset by delays. "If this is not a superficial, political assessment about whether or not the government of Canada likes this company or not, this will require bureaucratic time and effort to come up with a detailed assessment that will pass legal review," Mr. Perry said. Mr. Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, added that companies such as Boeing, which do billions of dollars of business and provide thousands of jobs in Canada, will be hard to box in specific categories. "Just coming down with some neat, clean assessment that says, on balance, this company is providing economic harm to Canada will be really difficult," Mr. Perry said. Boeing said that it is awaiting further details on the new economic impact test before deciding how to proceed on the upcoming competition for new jets. "We will review the Future Fighter Capability Project requirements for 88 jets, including the 'Boeing Clause,' and make a decision at the appropriate time," company spokesman Scott Day said. The federal government announced new details on the competition to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18s on Tuesday. A formal request for proposals is scheduled to be unveiled in spring, 2019, with a winning bidder announced in 2022. In addition to Boeing, other potential bidders include Lockheed Martin (F-35), Saab (Gripen), Dassault (Rafale) and Eurofighter (Typhoon). The opposition focused its attacks on the fact the government will be buying second-hand planes at an unspecified price instead of quickly launching a competition for new fighter jets. "We know these eighties-era jets are rusted out because a 2012 Australian report said corrosion was so bad that the number of active flying days had to be cut. This is not a bucket of bolts; this is a bucket of rusted-out bolts," Conservative MP Tony Clement said during Question Period. The government responded by blaming the Harper government for its failed attempt to buy F-35s without going to tenders. General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said the requirements for the full fleet of new fighter jets have been redrawn since the days in which only the F-35 could qualify. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-government-to-link-economic-interests-to-bids-for-fighter-jets/article37303772/

• 

  October 26, 2022 | Local, Naval

  Canadian Coast Guard and the Heiltsuk Nation Announce $5 million Pilot Project to Support Development of Heiltsuk Marine Response Team

  Bella Bella, British Columbia - Indigenous coastal communities share ties to Canada's oceans that span generations. Through the next phase of Canada's Oceans Protection Plan, the Government of Canada is working with First Nations to further improve how we respond to marine emergencies. Today, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the Honourable Joyce Murray, and the Heiltsuk Nation announced the start of the Heiltsuk Marine Emergency Response Team pilot project to enhance marine safety on the Central Coast of British Columbia. Through the Oceans Protection Plan, the Canadian Coast Guard is providing over $5M to immediately launch a pilot project to support the development of the Heiltsuk Marine Emergency Response Team. This team will be integrated into the federal marine preparedness and response system as a third-party responder to marine pollution incidents. The project will include engaging with community members, on-water exercises and training, procuring equipment, and developing response strategies within the Heiltsuk territory. This is one of several collaborations between the Canadian Coast Guard and the Heiltsuk Nation.The Government of Canada and the Heiltsuk Nation continue to work together to enhance the Nation's role in marine environmental response to provide emergency response capacity on the coast of British Columbia. Building on several years of collaborative discussions, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in March 2021, formalizing a commitment between the Nation and the Government of Canada to enhance community spill response capacity, including development of the Heiltsuk Marine Emergency Response Team. The Oceans Protection Plan is a Canadian success story. When Indigenous Peoples, industry, communities, academia, and government work together to protect our environment, grow our economy, and support good jobs across the country, we deliver real results. A renewed and expanded Oceans Protection Plan will keep our oceans and coasts healthy, advance reconciliation, and build a clean future for our children and grandchildren. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-coast-guard/news/2022/10/canadian-coast-guard-and-the-heiltsuk-nation-announce-5-million-pilot-project-to-support-development-of-heiltsuk-marine-response-team.html

• 

  July 20, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Why it is time for smart protectionism

  Put simply, Canadian governments have a responsibility to practise smart protectionism where the risks to Canadians' personal security and national security are high. Free trade is good economics. Protectionism is bad. Global supply chains are efficient. Favouring domestic goods, services and industries is inefficient. Canada has long adhered to these orthodoxies. And most of the time it makes sense to do so. However, through the COVID-19 pandemic, both the public and private sectors have seen weaknesses associated with heavy or total reliance on foreign sources and global supply chains for essential goods, notably personal protective equipment (PPE). As of June 2, for example, the Government of Canada had ordered close to 122 million N95 masks from international suppliers, yet 12 million had been received and 9.8 million of those failed Canadian standards. We are learning the hard way that foreign sources cannot necessarily supply the products we need in the time, quantity or quality required during a national or global emergency. China, as the dominant global producer of many of these PPE supplies, has become the focal point for an emerging debate around domestic control over certain goods, technologies, and services. A recent report from the Henry Jackson Society in the U.K., for example, has argued the “Five Eyes”—the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand—are far too reliant on Chinese sources for all kinds of strategically important goods, and that this is a threat to the national security of those countries. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, too, has warned that Canadian companies that produce certain critical technologies are vulnerable to foreign takeovers by entities with agendas hostile to Canada's interests. This is not just an issue with China, though. In Canada, we like to believe that in national or global crises we can rely on the U.S. or other allies for help. Canada, in other words, would be at or near the front of the line with allies. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the behavior of the U.S. and European countries, suggests this is naive. Italy, a founding EU member, requested and was denied face masks from the EU's stockpile at the peak of their COVID-19 outbreak. In April, a presidential executive order gave the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency the power to “allocate to domestic use” several types of PPE that would otherwise be exported. U.S. produced masks bound for Germany, a close American ally, were reportedly diverted back while in transit. Ultimately, Canada was exempt from the U.S. order, but this episode should tell us that global emergencies can lead to “home front comes first” attitudes, even among our closest allies. Fundamentally, the issue comes down to one of efficiency versus necessity. Sometimes, in some areas of the economy, security of supply is more important than efficiency. While this thinking is new to most companies and governments in Canada, it is not new to Canadian companies working in defence and national security. The Canadian defence industry has long highlighted the need for focused sovereign production and control in key national security capabilities—in part to ensure security of supply—as our allies in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere have been doing for generations. The argument has fallen largely on deaf ears. There seems to be a greater aversion in Canada to any kind of protectionism than among our more pragmatic allies. There is also a belief that Canada can always rely on obtaining critical supplies from the U.S., owing to both our close trading relationship and bi-lateral defence agreements dating from the 1950s that purport to establish an integrated North American defence industrial base. Canada puts too much faith in these beliefs, to our peril. While we can still hold free trade and integrated global supply chains as the goal, we also need to recognize that this view of the economy does not always serve our national interests. Put simply, Canadian governments have a responsibility to practise smart protectionism where the risks to Canadians' personal security and national security are high. Christyn Cianfarani is president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). The Hill Times https://www.hilltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/072020_ht.pdf