24 septembre 2021 | Local, Naval

Canada's exclusion from the AUKUS security pact reveals a failing national defence policy

Canada’s ‘fireproof house’ defence strategy is causing problems among its allies. When you are convinced you live in a gated community, the pressure to invest in alarms for your home disappears.

https://theconversation.com/canadas-exclusion-from-the-aukus-security-pact-reveals-a-failing-national-defence-policy-168235

Sur le même sujet

  • New defence procurement agency would be disruptive, costly

    20 février 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    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

  • La Défense nationale effectuera des expériences de formation en environnement urbain au centre-ville de Montréal

    5 septembre 2018 | Local, Terrestre

    La Défense nationale effectuera des expériences de formation en environnement urbain au centre-ville de Montréal

    Le 4 septembre 2018 – Ottawa – Défense nationale/Forces armées canadiennes Du 10 au 21 septembre 2018, des scientifiques canadiens de la défense et des membres des Forces armées canadiennes effectueront une série d’expériences de recherche en technologie dans la ville de Montréal aux côtés de pays partenaires, soit l’Australie, les États-Unis, la Nouvelle-Zélande et le Royaume-Uni. Les activités de recherche comprendront la mise à l’essai et l’évaluation de nouvelles technologies dans divers environnements et paysages urbains. L’expérience en environnement urbain contesté (EUC 18) se déroulera dans les environs du Manège militaire Côte-des-Neiges, autour de belvédère Kondiaronk, le long de la rue de la Montagne et près du Silo no 5 dans le secteur du Vieux-Port. La plupart des activités se dérouleront au cours de la journée, et quelques périodes d’essai auront lieu pendant la nuit. Tout le personnel militaire participant à l’expérience EUC 18 ne sera pas armé. Cette expérience est réalisée dans le but d’appuyer l’avancement de la recherche sur la meilleure façon de mener des opérations militaires dans des environnements urbains. Des mesures sont prises afin de minimiser les inconvénients pour les personnes se trouvant dans le secteur. Le public est toutefois avisé que certaines zones peuvent être inaccessibles pendant la durée de l’expérience EUC 18. Les questions concernant les sujets locaux, comme les perturbations de la circulation, les fermetures de routes, etc., doivent être adressées à la ville de Montréal. Les questions du public concernant l’expérience peuvent être adressées à l’organisation responsable des sciences et de la technologie du ministère de la Défense nationale, Recherche et développement pour la défense Canada, par courriel à CUE18_EUC18@forces.gc.ca. Les questions des médias peuvent être adressées au Bureau de relations avec les médias du ministère de la Défense nationale par courriel à mlo-blm@forces.gc.ca.

  • Fighter RFP delayed again pending official review of industrial benefits policy

    31 mai 2019 | Local, Aérospatial

    Fighter RFP delayed again pending official review of industrial benefits policy

    by Ken Pole Shortly before Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced on May 29 that a formal request for proposals (RFP) to supply 88 new Canadian fighter jets would be delayed again — this time to mid-July — two potential contenders said that a proposal to scrap the customary industrial benefits element of the procurement is problematic. Jim Barnes, director of Business Development in Canada for Boeing Defense, Space & Security and Roger Schallom, the company’s St. Louis-based vice-president of International Business Development, along with Patrick Palmer, vice-president and head of Sales at Saab Canada Inc., expressed their common concern during briefings at CANSEC, the annual Ottawa trade show organized by the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). Boeing’s contender to replace the RCAF’s legacy fleet of CF-188 Hornets is the F/A-18 Super Hornet, while Saab’s is the JAS 39 Gripen (the company had a full-scale replica parked front-and-centre outside CANSEC’s main entrance). The other contenders are Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and Airbus Military’s Eurofighter Typhoon. Barring any further hiccups in a program fraught with political indecision and already years behind the original schedule, the RFP process overseen by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is expected to lead to two finalists being chosen next year with a view to making a final selection in 2022. The government had been expected to issue its RFP by May 31 after years of indecision, but that latest deadline in the troubled procurement was postponed as officials at DND, PSPC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada review the industrial benefits element. “This is proof that your feedback is heard and acted upon,” Sajjan told the CANSEC audience. The proposed industrial benefits change was disclosed earlier this month by Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), an Ottawa-based think tank. He said in a report published by the MLI (May 6) that the Canadian government was yielding to pressure from the United States by changing the long-established requirement that companies bidding for contracts agree to investing an equivalent amount in Canada. The fighter procurement, including in-service support, is expected to cost at least $18 billion. Shimooka cited letters from U.S. officials that indicate “resentment and distrust towards the government of Canada had grown, particularly within the U.S. Air Force.” The letters evidently focused on the “significant strategic and economic benefits that have already been accrued from being part of the JSF program.” However, he added, the letters also contained “an implicit (but clear) threat that Canada could be kicked out of the program if Ottawa continues with its current policy of trying to obtain guaranteed industrial benefits that, by their very nature, are not allowed under the JSF Program. . . . There was a complete lack of logic of Canada’s policy, which seemed to ignore basic facts about membership in the JSF program, including clear advantages in cost and capability that the F-35 provided.” In his CANSEC briefing, Barnes admitted to having been “surprised by the recommended changes” in the shift in the long-standing requirement. “That policy’s been in place for decades and it’s been very successful for Canadian industry,” he replied, questioning what he called the government’s decision to “accommodate a competitor.” Schallom added that adhering to the historic requirement for direct industrial offsets, rather than simply offering “non-binding” bidding opportunities on future contracts, would be better for Canada’s economy over the expected 30 years or more of the new fighter program. “You’re probably missing out on $30 billion-plus in guaranteed work.” Saab’s Palmer echoed that position 30 minutes later, saying that he is concerned that the “non-binding requirement may not necessarily give Canadians the best value over the long term,” but, “until we see the final RFP (request for proposals), I’ll reserve final judgment.” However, when asked how Saab had responded formally to the proposed change on industrial benefits, he said, “We’ve asked them for some more information as it relates to the specifics of how items are going to be measured,” but had “definitely indicated that it doesn’t necessarily encourage the best solution for Canada at the end of the day.” https://www.skiesmag.com/news/fighter-rfp-delayed-again-pending-official-review-of-industrial-benefits-policy

Toutes les nouvelles