Les contrats militaires continueront de plomber CAE, met en garde son patron

On the same subject

• 

  February 12, 2020 | Local, Naval

  Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year: government documents

  All four of Canada's submarines were tied up last year for repairs and maintenance — news that has the opposition Conservatives questioning whether the Liberal government can keep the second-hand fleet afloat for another two decades. In response to a written question before Parliament, the Department of National Defence said the boats "spent zero days at sea" in 2019, but three of the four would return to service at some point this year. Over the year, HMCS Victoria, HMCS Windsor, HMCS Chicoutimi and HMCS Corner Brook were in various stages of repair and maintenance. They also went into drydock for long-term upgrades meant to ensure the submarines remain operational until the end of the next decade. The Liberal government's 2017 defence policy does not envision replacing the subs until 2040, but a written statement recently put before the House of Commons indicates the navy wants to keep the boats "operationally effective until the mid-2030s." Conservative defence critic James Bezan said the acquisition of new submarines is not something Canada can put off for 20 years — and the Department of National Defence and the Liberal government should begin seriously looking for replacements. 'Do they have a plan?' "The boats are getting older and need to be replaced sooner, but I'm not sure that's resonating with the minister's office or the [Prime Minister's Office]," Bezan said. "You have to ask yourself the questions. Do they have a plan to replace the submarines? And do they even care that we have submarines?" The boats were docked last year after an intense sailing schedule for two of the four submarines over 2017 and 2018. HMCS Chicoutimi spent 197 days at sea helping to monitor sanctions enforcement off North Korea and visiting Japan as part of a wider engagement in the western Pacific. HMCS Windsor spent 115 days in the water during the same time period, mostly participating in NATO operations in the Atlantic. Bezan said he is not questioning Canada's need for submarines, pointing out that the navy has three coastlines to monitor, countries such as China and India are investing heavily to build up their own fleets and Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic has surpassed Cold War levels. "The best way to fight a submarine is with a submarine," said Bezan. "There is a growing need for submarines to ensure our sovereignty around North America. It is also the best way to patrol our Arctic waters." Frigates first The Liberal government has just started the process of replacing the country's patrol frigates — the backbone of the navy — through an estimated $60 billion program that will roll out over the next two decades. Following the release of the federal government's new defence policy in June 2017, a senior government official, speaking on background, cited the cost and complexity of rebuilding the surface fleet as justification for postponing the purchase of new submarines. The commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, said that after some early struggles, the submarine program has reached what he described as "a steady state," and he's convinced the boats can be operated safely for years to come. "We know there's still excellent life in the Victoria-class submarine. I've seen that personally," McDonald told CBC News in a recent interview. "We'll be able to operate those boats into the 2030s, but to do that we'll have to continue with the routine investments we've made in them." Submarines are not cheap. Defence department figures tabled before Parliament show the navy has invested upward of $325 million in submarine maintenance, repairs and upkeep each year for the last two years. The bulk of the cash went to repairing HMCS Corner Brook, which has been undergoing an extended upgrade since 2015 following an accident four years earlier when it smashed into the bottom of the ocean off British Columbia. The boat is one of the three Canadian subs expected to be back in the water this year for "contractor trials" meant to confirm the repairs. The Chrétien government bought the submarines second-hand from Britain in 1998 at a cost of $750 million. Since then, National Defence has pumped billions into repairing and converting them for Canadian use. The program suffered a major setback in 2004 when HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage, killing one sailor. Almost a decade ago, navy planners started making a case for a replacement program. They told the former chief of the defence staff, the now-retired general Walt Natynczyk, that the military needed bigger, quieter submarines that could perform stealth missions, launch undersea robots and fire guided missiles at shore targets. The briefing was obtained in 2012 by The Canadian Press under access to information legislation. A year later, the commander of the navy at the time, the now-retired vice-admiral Paul Maddison, told a Senate committee the navy meant to operate the boats until at least 2030. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

• 

  December 20, 2019 | Local, Other Defence

  Canadian Forces had valuable ‘insights’ in Afghanistan, defence minister says following damning U.S. report

  By Charlie Pinkerton. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canadian Forces deployed to Afghanistan contributed useful insights to American forces, whose past military operations in the country have drawn new scrutiny following The Washington Post's publication of the so-called Afghanistan Papers. The documents obtained and published by the Post are the product of hundreds of interviews carried out by the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction (SIGAR). SIGAR was mandated to complete a series of reports exploring the effectiveness of its nearly two-decade, close to trillion-dollar mission that it began as a retaliation against al-Qaeda for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The documents fought for in court by the Post include notes, transcripts and audio recordings that the subjects had been promised would not be made public by the government. They provide a thorough look at the frustrations and concerns of top U.S. brass and a lack of understanding of the conflict by the American military and its government. One of the revelations of the Afghanistan Papers is the that as the conflict continued, top American military officials considered it an unwinnable conflict. Sajjan completed three Afghanistan tours, where he worked in intelligence before working directly with top American troops as an adviser. In giving his take on how the Canadian perspective compared to that of the Americans during the mission, Sajjan said the Canadian Armed Forces had a better understanding of the realities of the conflict than its closest allies. READ MORE: A year-end Q&A with Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan “I would say the insights the Canadians provided were actually very useful. That's one point that I'm trying to get across here, and I appreciate the Americans coming out and talking about this now,” Sajjan said. “Canadians were providing a very good perspective, very early on, to have a much more, I would say, accurate account of what is happening,” One passage the Post highlighted from the thousands of pages of documents to underscore the discontent with the conflict by U.S. officials was an interview with Douglas Lute, a former top army general who became an adviser on the Afghan war in the White House. “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn't know what we were doing,” Lute said. “What are we trying to do here? We didn't have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.” Sajjan said good decisions were made only with an “accurate” and “good understanding” of the Afghanistan conflict. From 2001 to 2014, 40,000 Canadians served in Afghanistan. There were 158 Canadian soldiers killed. On top of its military effort, Canada has provided more than $3 billion in international assistance to Afghanistan since 2001. In talking about Canada's operations in Afghanistan, Sajjan also defended well-known Canadian-led aspects of the mission, such as the Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team (OMLT, but known colloquially as omelette) and its stabilization-focused whole-of-government approach to the conflict. “What I'm trying to say here is that the work that Canada did there was highly valued and I appreciate other allies coming out with different perspectives,” Sajjan said. https://ipolitics.ca/2019/12/19/canadian-forces-had-valuable-insights-in-afghanistan-defence-minister-says-following-damning-u-s-report/

• 

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

  New defence procurement agency would be disruptive, costly

  It almost seemed like a throwaway line at the end of the Liberal Party's 2019 election platform, in a section on proposed approaches to security: “To ensure that Canada's biggest and most complex defence procurement projects are delivered on time and with greater transparency to Parliament, we will move forward with the creation of Defence Procurement Canada.” Little was said about the proposal during the election campaign, but in the mandate letters to ministers that followed, National Defence (DND), Public Services and Procurement (PSPC), and Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard were tasked with bringing forward options to establish Defence Procurement Canada (DPC), a priority, the Prime Minister wrote, “to be developed concurrently with ongoing procurement projects and existing timelines.” Whether DPC would be a department, standalone agency or new entity within an existing department isn't clear. Nor is it apparent how the government would consolidate and streamline the myriad procurement functions of multiple departments. Jody Thomas, deputy minister of National Defence, acknowledged as much during an address to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI) Jan. 29 when asked about DPC progress. “I don't know what it is going to look like ... We're building a governance to look at what the options could be and we are studying what other countries have done,” she said, noting that a standalone agency outside the department of defence has not necessarily worked particularly well in other countries. “Everything is on the table. We're looking at it, but we haven't actually begun the work in earnest.” The idea of moving defence procurement under a single point of accountability is hardly new. Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister of Material (Adm Mat), made the case for a single agency in a 2006 book, Reinventing Canadian Defence Procurement. And the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) issued a report in 2009 calling for a “separate defence procurement agency reporting through a single Minister ... [to] consolidate procurement, industrial, contracting and trade mandates into one new department, like a Defence Production Department, reporting to a minister.” More recently, an interim report on defence procurement by the Senate Committee on National Defence in June 2019 argued that “a single agency could simplify the complex procurement governance framework. Serious consideration could also be given to empowering project officials and making the Department of National Defence the lead department.” Williams remains a strong proponent. In a presentation to a CGAI conference on defence procurement in the new Parliament in late November, he greeted the DPC decision with a “hallelujah,” pointing to the high cost created by overlap and duplication when multiple ministers are involved in a military acquisition decision, and the tendency to play the “blame game” when delays or problems arise and there is no single point of accountability. But he cautioned that the initiative would falter without better system-wide performance measures on cost, schedules and other metrics. “If you don't monitor and put public pressure on the system, things will [slide],” he said. Williams also called for a defence industrial plan, backed by Cabinet approval, to help identify where to invest defence capital, and “a culture that recognizes and demands innovative creativity, taking chances.” Other former senior civil servants, many with decades of experience in public sector organizational reform, were less optimistic about the prospects of a new agency or departmental corporation. “There is always a good reason why things are the way they are,” said Jim Mitchell, a research associate with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and part of massive reorganization of government departments undertaken by Prime Minister Kim Campbell during her brief tenure in 1993. “If you want to change things, you first have to understand, why do we have the current situation that we have in defence procurement and who are the people who have a major stake in the status quo and why? If you don't understand that, you are going to get into big trouble,” he warned the CGAI audience of government and industry leaders. At a time when the departments are moving a record number of equipment projects, including CF-188 Hornet replacement, through the acquisition process under the government's 2017 defence policy, any restructuring could significantly delay progress. “Organizational change is always disruptive, it's costly, it's difficult, it's hard on people, it hurts efficiency and effectiveness of organizations for a couple of years at minimum,” said Mitchell. “It is something you do very, very carefully.” It's a point not lost on CADSI. “The sheer scale of the change required to make DPC real should give companies pause. It could involve some 4,000-6,000 government employees from at least three departments and multiple pieces of legislation, all while the government is in the middle of the most aggressive defence spending spree in a generation,” the association wrote in an email to members in December. A vocal proponent of improving procurement, it called DPC “a leap of faith,” suggesting it might be “a gamble that years of disruption will be worth it and that the outcomes of a new system will produce measurably better results, including for industry.” Gavin Liddy, a former assistant deputy minister with PSPC, questioned the reasoning for change when measures from earlier procurement reform efforts such as increased DND contracting authority up to $5 million are still taking effect. “You really need an extraordinarily compelling reason to make any kind of organizational change. And every time we have attempted it ... it takes five to seven years before the organization is up and standing on its feet,” he told CGAI. “If you want to do one single thing to delay the defence procurement agenda...create a defence procurement agency. Nothing would divert attention more than doing that.” While few questioned the need for enhancements to the defence procurement process, many of the CGAI participants raised doubts about the logic of introducing a new entity less than three years into the government's 20-year strategy. Thomas described a number of improvements to project management and governance that are already making a difference. “The budgeting and project management in defence is really extraordinarily well done. If I am told by ADM Mat they are going to spend $5.2 billion, then that is what they spend. And we have the ability to bring more down, or less, depending on how projects are rolling,” she explained. “We are completely transparent about how we are getting money spent, what the milestones are on projects ... The program management board is functioning differently and pulling things forward instead of waiting until somebody is ready to push it forward.” “And we are working with PSPC. I think it is time to look at the government contracting [regulations], how much we compete, what we sole source, the reasons we sole source. I think there is a lot of work there that can be done that will improve the system even more.” https://www.skiesmag.com/news/new-defence-procurement-agency-would-be-disruptive-costly