January 6, 2020 | Local, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By Charlie Pinkerton; iPolitics
Published on Jan 2, 2020 3:02pm
Although Canada's defence minister has been tasked with working toward creating a new defence procurement agency to improve the country's often slow-moving system for purchasing military equipment, there's no clear timeline for when the new body will be put in place.
In the mandate letter addressed to him by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and published last month, Harjit Sajjan was told that part of his job in this Parliament will be to “bring forward analyses and options for the creation of Defence Procurement Canada,” which the Liberals promised to advance toward in this mandate while they campaigned in the fall's election.
“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.
Sajjan also said the Department of National Defence (DND), Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada still need to complete “more work” before a timeline for the creation of the new procurement agency would be set.
Some of the first steps of the Trudeau government to improve Canada's military procurement system was in transferring the responsibility of military procurements to being managed internally at DND. When the Liberals published its overhauled defence policy in June 2017, DND said that 70 per cent of procured projects were being delivered past their deadlines.
“Cumbersome decision making and approval processes have introduced undue delays. Accountability among departments has been diffuse and at times unclear,” says the Liberals' defence policy (it's titled Strong, Secure, Engaged).
As a response, the defence policy declared that DND would internally manage the contracts of all projects of under $5 million — an initiative which it said would reduce departmental approval times by 50 per cent for 80 per cent of all contracts. The defence policy is intended to lead how Canada's military operates beyond this decade.
At the same time as developing the new agency for military procurement projects, Sajjan has also been tasked with choosing which company the government will choose to pay almost $20 billion to build Canada's next generation fleet of fighter jets.
According to the current timeline laid out by the Canadian Armed Forces, the government will receive the final bid proposals from the three companies it deemed in 2018 as being capable of meeting Canada's needs (which includes Saab, Lockheed Martin and Boeing) early in 2020. If it sticks to its timeline, the government will pick which company will be its fighter jet provider by next year and will receive the first next generation jet as early as 2025.
Sajjan's mandate letter includes another procurement-related list item; he's also tasked with advancing the renewal of Canada's naval fleet. There are four major navy procurement projects that are nearing their conclusion. Canada is buying new surface combatants, new Arctic and offshore patrol ships, new joint patrol ships and retrofitting its 12 frigates. The combined cost of these projects is expected to cost taxpayers more than $83 billion.
Investments in procured projects account for a large portion of the $32 billion jump in annual defence spending that Canada is planning for by 2027. If achieved in that year, Canada's defence spending as it relates to a portion of the country's gross domestic product (GDP) would equal about 1.4 per cent. Canada currently spends just over 1.3 per cent of its GDP on its military two years ago. It has pledged to NATO to work toward spending two per cent of its GDP on its military, which is a common goal amongst allied countries. Over the past few years, U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on Canada to increase its military spending to surpass two per cent of GDP.
Global News reported less than a month ago that Canada had multibillion-dollar discrepancies in the last two years in how much it planned to spend on its military and how much it actually spent. According to documents obtained by the publication, it had a discrepancy of $2.29 billion in military spending in 2017-2018 and a shortfall of $4.45 billion in spending last year, compared to what it outlined in its defence policy.
May 2, 2022 | Local, Land
Après les USA qui vont fournir 90 pièces de 155 mm et le Canada qui en enverra six, c'est au tour des Australiens de contribuer au renforcement de...
August 20, 2019 | Local, Aerospace
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
February 18, 2024 | Local, Security
The recent Defence Department results report provides a clear picture of the overall readiness of the CAF at barely 50 to 60 per cent.