Back to news

October 10, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

Ex-Quebec premier Jean Charest to pilot aerospace industry relaunch plan

Christopher Reynolds, The Canadian Press

MONTREAL -- Canada's aerospace industry has appointed former Quebec premier Jean Charest to chart a new course for the sector.

The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada is putting Charest in the cockpit to coax funding commitments and a long-term plan from the federal government amid fears the country's star is fading.

"The industry has come to the conclusion that we sort of need a reset in terms of what the future of the industry is in Canada," Charest said in a phone interview from Paris.

"There is a sense that we're in a world where there's much more competition. And it's not that we're doing badly, but the world is really moving fast."

Charest, a former federal minister who served as premier of Quebec from 2003 to 2012, highlighted government's "very critical role" in funding, research and training for civil and defence aviation.

"The Trump administration has decided to create a new division for space," he noted, referring to a newly announced military branch the U.S. president has dubbed Space Force.

"We can't stand still," Charest said.

Jim Quick, president of the aerospace industry group, said Canada is "not keeping up" with the sector growth and innovation of countries such as France, Germany and the United States, which have long-term strategies in place.

Britain is targeting 10 per cent of the global space market within 12 years, he pointed out. Luxembourg aims to dig into space mining such as harvesting asteroid's for rare and precious metals.

Quick said the new initiative, called Vision 2025, will push Ottawa to include a long-term space plan in its budget next year, alongside a commitment to help provide advanced robotics for the Lunar Gateway -- described as a third-generation Canadarm.

Charest, a partner at the McCarthy Tetrault law firm, will lead discussions with government and industry officials in several cities, including Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax, culminating in a report on aerospace priorities.

Aerospace leads Canada's manufacturing sector in innovation-related investment, spending over $1.8 billion on research and development in 2017 -- nearly one-quarter of total manufacturing research expenditures, according to the association.

Nonetheless, Ottawa's investments in space as a percentage of GDP have dropped to 18th globally from eighth place in 1992, according to the association. The sector's manufacturing employment has fallen by five per cent since 2012.

Canada hosts the world's fifth-largest aerospace industry, contributing nearly $25 billion to Canada's economy and almost 190,000 jobs in 2017, the association said.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/ex-quebec-premier-jean-charest-to-pilot-aerospace-industry-relaunch-plan-1.4127569

On the same subject

  • Fight the Information War Without Sacrificing Canadian Values

    October 29, 2020 | Local, Land

    Fight the Information War Without Sacrificing Canadian Values

    David Scanlon Defence Watch Guest Writer Recent news reports have shown the Canadian Armed Forces are struggling to define ethical boundaries as they expand their capability to meet the rising threats of the information age. A global information war is now being fought in a “grey zone” where malign state and non-state actors are trying to sow confusion and division across the international community. American professor of strategy and author Sean McFate writes that future military victories “will be won and lost in the information space, not on the physical battlefield.” But he warns that “some democracies may be tempted to sacrifice their values in the name of victory.” Recent mishaps by Canada's military underscore this temptation. In April, the Ottawa Citizen published this headline: “Canadian Forces ‘information operations' pandemic campaign quashed after details revealed to top general.” The article reported that the “IO” campaign was targeted at Canadians and “called for ‘shaping' and ‘exploiting' information” with the aim of maintaining civil order and ensuring “public compliance with suppression measures” during the coronavirus pandemic. A parallel effort involved the “data mining” of personal social media accounts in Ontario by a team assigned to military intelligence. The military shared data with the province, including findings that some of its citizens were unhappy about its response to the pandemic. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan ordered a review of the information operations campaign and an investigation into the legality of the data-mining activities. Given the Canadian Armed Forces were tasked with helping the provinces of Quebec and Ontario deal with the cruel impact of the coronavirus in long-term care homes, it is disquieting that such a campaign would be contemplated, let alone put in writing. Chief of the defence staff General Jon Vance reportedly avowed that, “as long as he was in charge information operations tactics wouldn't be used in a domestic situation, except in the case where an enemy had invaded the country.” Despite the defence chief's promise, only six months later the armed forces were caught conducting a disinformation campaign on Canada's Atlantic coast. Under the headline, “Canadian Soldiers Cry Wolf, Alarming Residents,” the New York Times reported that a military psychological training exercise had “gone wrong,” and that a “fake disinformation exercise had become a real one.” For reasons as yet unexplained, military personnel circulated a forged letter from the province of Nova Scotia warning certain residents to be wary of a wandering wolfpack, backed by loudspeakers blaring the sounds of growling wolves. It took some time for the armed forces to accept responsibility and apologize. Meanwhile, baffled local officials assured affected residents the province had not issued the letter and there were no wolves in the area. The defence minister rightly supports training the military “on how best to respond to foreign actors who use influence activities.” But to avoid further mistakes he ordered such training paused until an investigation into the wayward wolfpacks was concluded. Emma Briant, a US-based British academic and author who specializes in propaganda and political communication, told the New York Times she finds the recent incidents “appalling,” a “failure of governance,” a “failure to ensure restraint,” and a “failure to ensure ethics are built into training and planning operations.” “They seem to have introduced a policy of weaponization of influence, domestically,” Briant observes. Instead, she advises, Canada's military needs to be building “a relationship of trust with the public.” The military's pattern of ethical breaches appears to reveal an embedded operational mindset fixed on tactics, as opposed to a strategic one focussed on building public trust. British military historian Hew Strachan wrote that armed forces are attracted to the operational level of war, as opposed to the strategic. It allows them to “appropriate what they see as the acme of their professional competence,” enabling them to operate in “a politics free zone.” This may in part explain General Vance's decision in 2015 to “operationalize” the military's public affairs branch, which is responsible for public communication. The branch was seen as not delivering tangible “effects” in support of so-called “operations in the information environment.” By operationalizing a strategic function like public affairs, the military was in effect reducing it to an operational or tactical capability, like special operations forces or precision-guided missiles. Ostensibly, these can deliver precise, tangible “effects” under direct military control. Some of the perils of this new approach were exposed when a senior public affairs officer, Brig.-Gen Jay Janzen (then a colonel), began using his Twitter account to target journalists, commentators, and politicians. In April 2018, for instance, he sparked a heated Twitter exchange with opposition defence critic James Bezan. The defence committee had been debating a military deployment to Mali to help defeat cancerous African offshoots of ISIS and al-Qaeda. Janzen tweeted that questions about the mission from opposition Members of Parliament were “nonsensical.” He even proposed “better” questions for opposition parties to ask. For a serving senior officer to publicly criticize elected officials was unprecedented. Government ministers must have been perplexed to see a high-ranking service member tweeting better debate questions to opposition MPs. Janzen's tweets, which appear to have at least the tacit approval of his superiors, set an example for other service members. Another perplexing public information moment occurred last April when the Canadian military reported that a Canadian frigate patrolling off the Greek coast had “lost contact” with its Cyclone maritime helicopter. It was later revealed the helicopter was moments from landing on the ship when, as the CBC reported, “it went down in full view of horrified shipmates.” Tragically, all six aboard the Cyclone were killed in the crash. The military was widely criticized for misrepresenting the facts—contact was in fact never “lost” and officials failed to explain the miscommunication. Some practitioners of public affairs and information operations have been telling their military bosses that with scientific techniques like “target audience analysis” they can change people's perceptions and behaviours with astounding precision. Canada's defence department recently paid over a million dollars to Emic Consulting Limited (whose founder worked at the UK's controversial and now defunct Strategic Communication Laboratories) to teach public affairs officers and others how to conduct “actor and audience analysis” and otherwise weaponize behavioural science. But is this training being misapplied? One aim of information operations is to change the perceptions and behaviours of target audiences using a range of influence techniques, including “psychological” and “deception” operations. As the defence chief alluded, such techniques should not be approved for use in Canada, other than in exceptional circumstances against clearly defined foes, such as terrorists. Military public affairs, by contrast, is about ensuring Canada's armed forces follow federal communications policy, which calls for maintaining “public trust,” and directs that federal communications “must be objective, factual, non-partisan, clear, and written in plain language.” In a free and democratic society, public trust is a priceless strategic “effect.” As malign actors seek to create confusion and division, Canadians need trusted sources of information. Surveys consistently show that Canadians trust their military. Military leaders and their public affairs advisors must preserve this trust. As called for in defence policy, Canada's armed forces do need the tools to wage information and cyber warfare. They are already facing such threats on missions overseas. But the armed forces also need the tools to communicate with Canadians and other friendly audiences in a timely, truthful, and accurate fashion. Transparency is a potent democratic deterrent against disinformation. Informed by the investigations into recent mishaps, the defence minister and chief of the defence staff should consider the following: o To ensure that information operations have proper approvals and oversight, and are conducted ethically, robust policy, doctrine, and governance are essential. o To ensure broad awareness of ethical considerations when conducting influence activities, related training and education needs to be incorporated at all rank levels. o To explain their actions and help build public trust, the armed forces need to field uniformed spokespersons more often. (The military's “chief spokesman” cited by the New York Times in the “wolves” story was a civilian.) o To ensure coherent doctrine and effective implementation of information-related capabilities, a professional total force cadre of practitioners should be created. o Military public affairs must be reinvigorated as a strategic capability that promotes transparency, provides unhindered advice to commanders at all levels, and ensures close coordination with the civilian communication arms of government. o Policy and doctrine, along with leaders, operators, and information practitioners, must clearly differentiate between activities intended to inform Canadians, such as public affairs, and information operations designed to influence or deceive adversaries. Fighting disinformation is a serious whole-of-nation challenge. It requires an informed public, ethical and transparent government, an engaged private sector, a vigorous and valued free press, and armed forces that respect and reflect Canadian values. https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/fight-the-information-war-without-sacrificing-canadian-values-513691/

  • Rheinmetall lifts curtain on new next-gen combat vehicle with hopes to spark US Army interest

    June 13, 2018 | Local, Land

    Rheinmetall lifts curtain on new next-gen combat vehicle with hopes to spark US Army interest

    PARIS, France — Rheinmetall lifted a curtain, literally, complete with smoke and 80s rock, on its new Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicle at Eurosatory June 12, setting its sights on meeting requirements for both European and U.S. future combat vehicles. “Do current fighting vehicles meet the needs of future forces? This was the question that started Rheinmetall on a journey to develop a Lynx family of vehicles,” Ben Hudson, the head of the company's vehicle systems division, said at Eurosatory just ahead of the unveiling. Hudson said militaries around the world are rethinking requirements and it is clear that in order to meet all the demands of future operations and potential peer-on-peer conflict that a vehicle needs “to provide utility across the spectrum of conflict” and have “the ability to conduct peer-on-peer warfare against emerging battlefield threats.” The U.S. Army has set developing a Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) as one of its top six modernization priorities. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/12/rheinmetall-lifts-curtain-on-new-next-gen-combat-vehicle-with-hopes-to-spark-us-army-interest/

  • Government doesn’t know when a defence procurement agency might be created

    March 10, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Government doesn’t know when a defence procurement agency might be created

    In the last election campaign the Liberals promised to create a defence procurement agency as part of its efforts to improve purchasing of equipment for the Canadian Forces. No details were released at the time. In December, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in his mandate letter to Procurement Minister Anita Anand, outlined how she would lead an effort to bring “forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada, to ensure that Canada's biggest and most complex National Defence and Canadian Coast Guard procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament.” Anand would do this with the support of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, according to her mandate letter. At the time Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan claimed much of the work was already underway. “A lot of work has already started on (Defence Procurement Canada) and the goal of this is to make sure that we get the procurement projects done as quickly as possible to make sure the Canadian Armed Forces has what they need,” Sajjan told iPolitics the day before his mandate letter was released. Strangely, when asked about that work, Sajjan's department pointed out that he wasn't specifically referring to the DND and that Anand's Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) had the lead on the file. So, Defense Watch requested the timetable for this effort. Among the questions asked of Anand's department was when the new agency could potentially be expected to be stood up, will there be consultations done and whether there were any concepts already put forward for the agency that could be shared with the public? If this were such an important effort then of course the department would have an idea of at least a timeline on how things might unfold. Here is the answer provided by PSPC: “The Minister of Public Services and Procurement has been tasked to work with partner departments to bring forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada. Public Services and Procurement Canada is leading this work with support from National Defence, Canadian Coast Guard, and Innovation Sciences and Economic Development Canada. This initiative is aimed at ensuring that Canada's biggest, most complex procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament. Work on this important initiative has just begun.” This answer provides little more than what was in the mandate letter. No details on what actual work was being contemplated or taking place was provided. There is no schedule or target date for even producing options and reporting back to government on those. In fact, this PSPC answer seems to undercut Sajjan's earlier claims that “a lot” of work had already started even before the mandate letters were released. Some in the defence industry don't expect much to come from the Liberal election promise of a single defence procurement agency. They point out their case is bolstered when the department leading the initiative doesn't know, or can't provide, even a timetable for such an initiative. The public, as well as industry, will have to wait and see whether Defence Procurement Canada ever becomes a reality. (Analysis) https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/government-doesnt-know-when-a-defence-procurement-agency-will-be-created

All news