17 décembre 2020 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Matt Gurney: Supporting local industry shouldn't be the first consideration in military procurement

Rather than worrying about where things are built, a better question is: will Canadian soldiers be properly equipped? That's all that matters

Matt Gurney

Dec 16, 2020 • Last Updated 22 hours ago • 5 minute read

It is almost a truism in Canadian public policy: We are terrible at military procurement.

You hear that often. I've said it often. But it really isn't true. We only think we're terrible at military procurement because we are confused about what we're trying to do. Our military procurements are not about actually procuring equipment for the military. They're about creating jobs and catapulting huge sums of money into key ridings across the country.

Once you shift your perspective and look at it that way, you realize very quickly that our military procurement system is amazing. It bats a thousand. The problem isn't with the system. We've just labelled it badly. If it were called the Domestic Defence Industry Subsidy Program instead of our military procurement system, we'd all be hailing it as a shining example of a Canadian public policy triumph.

This is terrible. It has cost us the lives of our soldiers, and probably will again. But it's undeniable. Canadian politicians, Liberals and Conservatives alike, have long had the luxury of seeing defence as a cash pool, not a solemn obligation. And they sure have enjoyed that pleasure.

Two recent stories by my colleague David Pugliese for the Ottawa Citizen have explored this theme: Our efforts to replace our fleet of frigates with 15 newer, more powerful ships is turning predictably complicated. The 15 new combat ships are part of a major overhaul of the Canadian fleet, which was neglected for many years and now must be modernized all at once. In February of 2019, the government chose American defence giant Lockheed Martin to produce the ships in Canada, using a British design. (How Anglosphere of us.) Companies that weren't selected to be part of the construction or fitting out of the ships are unhappy, Pugliese noted, and aren't bothering to hide it, even though they've abandoned their legal challenges.

The sniping has continued, though, with spurned industry figures talking to the media about problems with the program. Jody Thomas, deputy minister of the Department of National Defence, reportedly told industry leaders to knock it off. “There's too much noise,” she reportedly said, adding that it was making the job of getting the new fleet built “very difficult.”

Some of Thomas's irritation is undoubtedly the automatic hostility to scrutiny, transparency and accountability that's far too common for Canadian officials — our bureaucrats are notoriously prone to trying to keep stuff tucked neatly out of public view. But some of what Thomas said is absolutely bang-on accurate: Defence industry companies know full well that the government mainly views military procurement as a jobs-creation program, so are understandably put out to not get what they think is their fair share.

Some Canadian companies have designed and developed critical communication and sensor gear for modern warships, Pugliese noted. This gear was developed with taxpayer assistance and has proven successful in service with allied fleets, but was not chosen for the new Canadian ships. And this is, the companies believe, a problem. Why aren't Canadian ships using Canadian-made gear?

It's a good question, until you think about it for a moment. Then you realize that the better question is this: will the Canadian ships be properly equipped?

That's it. That's all that matters.

Will the new ships be capable of doing the things we need them to do? If yes, then who cares where we got the gear? And if no, well, again — then who cares where we got the gear? The important thing isn't where the comm equipment and sensors were designed and built. It's that the systems work when our ships are heading into harm's way. Assuming we have many viable options to choose from, then there are plenty of good ways of making the choice — cost, proven reliability, familiarity to Canadian crews, and, sure, even whether it was made in Canada.

But supporting the local industry needs to be the last thing on the list. This stuff is essential. The lives of our sailors may depend on it working when needed. Cost matters, too, of course, because if the gear is too pricey, we won't have enough of it, but effectiveness and reliability are first.

Treating military procurement as just another federal jobs-creation program is engrained in our national thinking

But we talk about them last. Because we value it least. There probably is some value in preserving our ability to produce some essential military equipment here in Canada. The scramble earlier this year to equip our frontline medical workers with personal protective equipment is instructive. In a war, whether against a virus or a human enemy, you can't count on just buying your N-95 masks, or your torpedoes and missiles, from your normal suppliers. Unless Canada somehow gets itself into a shooting war without any of our allies in our corner, any time we are suddenly scrambling to arm up, our much larger allies are probably also scrambling to arm up, and they'll simply outbid us. (See again our current efforts to procure vaccines for an example of this unfolding in real time.)

But we aren't at war now, and we can buy the damn ships from anyone. To the government's credit, it seems to be doing this; the pushback against the program seems mostly rooted in the government's decision to let the U.S.-British consortium chosen to build the new ships equip them as they see fit. The program may well derail at some point — this is always a safe bet with Canadian shipbuilding — but insofar as at least this part of the process goes, we're doing it partially right. Yes, we're insisting on building the ships here, but we aren't getting picky about the equipment that goes into them. That's probably wise.

But that's about as far as the wisdom goes. Treating military procurement as just another federal jobs-creation program is engrained in our national thinking. It would have been good if COVID had knocked a bit of sense into us and forced us to, at long last, grow up a bit. But no dice. Oh well. Maybe next time.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-supporting-local-industry-shouldnt-be-the-first-consideration-in-military-procurement

Sur le même sujet

29 janvier 2021 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Canada's new top military commander marks international debut in virtual NATO meeting
Art McDonald says mutual cooperation and understanding is at the heart of military alliance Murray Brewster · Canada's new top military commander had an international debut of sorts on Wednesday as Admiral Art McDonald attended, via video conference, a meeting of his NATO counterparts. The military alliance's chiefs of defence staff meet on a regular basis and the event was the first for McDonald since he assumed command earlier this month. The discussion was also significant in light of the change in leadership in Washington and the Biden Administration's pledge to reinvigorate ties with allied nations. McDonald, in a Tweet, said "mutual cooperation and understanding is at the heart of the Alliance," but offered no further remarks on the substance of the meeting. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke with U.S. President Joe Biden on Tuesday in a relaxed, friendly discussion that was carried on NATO's YouTube channel. The chat was a stark contrast to some of the free-wheeling, tense and unpredictable media appearances Stoltenberg had with former president Donald Trump, who routinely questioned the value and expense of the alliance. "We've got a mountain of work to do ahead of us, from tackling COVID, to climate, to the security challenges," Biden told the secretary general. "I intend to rebuild and re-establish our alliances, starting with NATO." The words and reassurances were echoed in Stoltenberg's opening remarks to the defence chiefs on Wednesday. He said he was looking forward to working with Biden because "the U.S. and Europe are safer standing together." Push for increased defence spending Under Trump, the U.S. made it a priority to push other NATO nations to spend more on defence and take a greater share of the collective defence burden. In a sign that pressure is not going away, Stoltenberg told the defence chiefs that allies should remain committed to increased military spending, investments in modern capabilities and a higher state of readiness for existing forces. It is a tall order in light of the budget-busting deficits being run by western governments because of the coronavirus pandemic. The Liberal government in Canada has said throughout the crisis that its military spending plans, carved out almost four years ago in its defence policy, are safe from the budget axe. Stoltenberg also said, significantly, that he will present recommendations on how to equip NATO for the future when allied leaders meet in Brussels later this year. And he underlined that he wants NATO to take on a more global approach and work closely with democracies in the Asia-Pacific region. The North Atlantic alliance, which was founded to counter Soviet expansionism in Europe, has increasingly over the last few years grappled with the rise of a more assertive China on the world stage. 'A return to treating allies like allies' A defence analyst said it wasn't hard to spot the lighter mood in the call between Biden and Stoltenberg. "Relief and excitement were the two major emotions — almost palpable — on the call between the Secretary General and President Biden," said Robert Baines, president of the NATO Association of Canada, a non-governmental organization based in Toronto. "The call reminds us just how frayed the tone of the U.S.-NATO relationship has been. None of the statements from the President would have been extraordinary without the context given to them by the past four years." Baines noted Biden's commending of Stoltenberg's "personal diplomacy" over the last few years. "That was no doubt meant to give Mr Stoltenberg some credit for his handling of President Trump," he said. Biden's remarks are significant for Canada because throughout the Trump years the United States often took unexpected unilateral action without consulting allies, Baines added. "Over the past several years, from the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Syria to the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, the United States under President Trump was not one that consulted, or even warned, its allies," he said. "On more than one occasion, Canada was left in the lurch because of unilateral action by the United States when our Canadian soldiers were on the ground and potentially in harms-way. President Biden's comments suggest a return to treating allies like allies." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-mcdonald-military-1.5890963
18 octobre 2019 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Conservatives promise to 'protect' defence spending from deficit battle
Defence takes a fifth of the federal budget and has often been a target for deficit cutters Murray Brewster The Conservatives have pledged to "protect" the budget of the Department of National Defence even as they work to eliminate the federal deficit. In their election platform, the Tories said they would find $5 billion in savings by cutting operational expenses, but were not clear on precisely what that meant, other than to say it would not affect services to Canadians. The Liberals, through their two-year-old defence policy, committed to increase defence spending by 70 per cent to $32 billion annually by 2024-25 — a program that would unfold at precisely the same time a potential Conservative government intends to cut expenditures. The Liberals have also set in motion plans to buy two of the military's biggest-ticket items — new fighter jets and navy frigates. Conservative leader Andrew Scheer said Wednesday his party would stick with those purchases, but would be more efficient. "We are committed to the funding allocated to the Department of National Defence," he said during a campaign stop in in southwestern Ontario. "We will not do what the Liberals did, which is waste hundreds of millions of dollars stopping and starting the procurement process." The Conservatives have pledged to depoliticize the process of buying military equipment and have complained about the Liberal government's delivery timelines and decisions, including the plan to purchase used Australian F-18s to supplement the existing fighter jet force until a decision is made on brand-new warplanes. Says money wasted "They have wasted so much money when it comes to procurement," Scheer said, adding that Conservatives would "protect the budgets of National Defence [and] we're going to ensure that the money that's allocated to National Defence is spent wisely." At least two experts wonder how the Conservatives can live up to that pledge in light of the fact the Defence Department is the single biggest discretionary expense on the federal balance sheet and the last two times Conservatives — or Liberals — tried to balance the budget, military spending took major hits. Under the government of former prime minister Stephen Harper, the defence budget was cut by $2.1 billion annually and the department racked up sizeable chunks of lapsed spending, money that was appropriated by Parliament, but not spent. The reduction took place after the Afghan war and the department faced concurrent spending cuts through the Conservative strategy review and deficit reduction action plan. Both Liberal and Conservative governments in the 1990s cut defence spending and postponed buying new equipment, most notably new maritime helicopters, which only came into service in the last few years Defence spending an obvious target "Balancing a federal budget without looking at defence spending is extraordinarily difficult, to impossible," said Dave Perry, an analyst and expert in defence spending at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "Defence spending accounts for one-fifth of the federal budget." And even if the Conservatives did look for savings, a change to the accounting structure at Defence leaves little room for them to recoup much money by cancelling or postponing equipment purchases. Reducing the size of the military or the civil service was something previous governments did, but Perry said those kinds of cuts "take two years or more" to make their way through the system. Kevin Page, the former parliamentary budget officer and CEO of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, said much of what all of the parties are proposing — and their ability to deliver — is contingent on the kind of Parliament that is elected on Monday. CANADA VOTES How much will the defence file matter to voters? PBO pushes up cost estimate for Canada's frigate build by $8 billion In a minority government scenario, the Conservatives might find themselves struggling to deliver savings outside of the Defence Department, he suggested. Would need majority "If elected, I would assume the Conservatives would need a majority government to push through the savings on direct program spending – infrastructure, wage bills, other operations, corporate and development assistance," Page said. The Liberal record on defence spending is up for debate. An internal DND slide presentation, obtained by CBC News, lays out projections for the department going to up to the 2036-37 fiscal year. Faced with extraordinary pressure from the Trump administration to meet NATO's goal of earmarking two per cent of gross domestic product for military spending, the Liberal government committed to a 70 per cent increase by 2024-25. The Feb. 25, 2019 slide presentation shows that spending will peak in 2026-27 and begin to fall again in the preceding decade. Used Australian fighter jets could cost $1.1B: Parliamentary budget officer The document also shows that, for two years running, the Liberals have not spent as much as they planned on new equipment. While $12.7 billion was set aside in their plan between 2017-19 for new military gear, the Trudeau government only asked Parliament for permission to spend $8.34 billion — leaving $4.4 billion still in the treasury. The slide presentation said part of the reason is that some existing projects came in under budget, but in one-third of the instances the spending delay was because the Defence Department — or the federal government in general — could not get the projects organized. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-defence-spending-1.5323618
18 juin 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

Canada to buy more than $1 billion of missiles, related equipment from U.S. for CF-18 fighters
David Pugliese • Ottawa Citizen The U.S. government has cleared the way for Canada to buy more than $1 billion worth of new missiles and related equipment for the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-18 fighter jet fleet. The U.S. State Department approved the proposed sale to Canada for the 50 Sidewinder AIM-9X Block II Tactical missiles, radars and other various equipment for an estimated cost of $862.3 million U.S. ($1.1 billion Canadian). U.S. Congress was informed of the deal on Monday. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency in the U.S. announced the news on Tuesday. The companies involved in the sale are U.S. firms, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Collins Aerospace. “This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of Canada, a NATO ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress and a contributor to military, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world,” the Defense Security Cooperation Agency stated in its announcement. ”This sale will provide Canada a 2-squadron bridge of enhanced F/A-18A aircraft to continue meeting NORAD and NATO commitments while it gradually introduces new advanced aircraft via the Future Fighter Capability Program between 2025 and 2035.” Besides the 50 Sidewinder missiles, the deal will include training missiles, guidance systems, 38 specialized radar units, 20 Joint Standoff Weapons as well as support equipment. In an email the Department of National Defence stated that the U.S. approval for the missiles and related equipment is part of the “Hornet Extension Project” or HEP. That is part of the overall $1.3 billion project cost and fleet maintenance costs, it added. “HEP will also provide upgrades to sensors, weapons, and survivability, as well as security enhancements,” the DND noted. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canada-to-buy-more-than-1-billion-of-missiles-related-equipment-from-u-s-for-cf-18-fighters

Toutes les nouvelles