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

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

More than 100 military procurements facing delays: Defence Department
The delivery dates for new or upgraded equipment, some of which is needed urgently, have been pushed several years into the future by Lee Berthiaume OTTAWA — The Department of National Defence has identified delays in more than 100 planned military purchases and facility upgrades, most of which have flown under the radar as attention has focused on the government's problems buying new fighter jets and warships. While some of the schedule setbacks revealed by the Defence Department are relatively minor, others are significant, with the delivery dates for new or upgraded equipment — some of which is needed urgently — pushed several years into the future. Those include new engineering vehicles and machine-guns for the army, new drones for the navy to hunt mines and satellite hookups for its submarines, and upgrades to the air force's aging fighter-jet and surveillance aircraft fleets. More than half the list of 117 delayed projects is infrastructure projects on military bases, including health facilities, maintenance and storage hangars, armouries and ammunition depots. The list was produced by the Defence Department and recently tabled in the House of Commons in response to a request from the official Opposition Conservatives. Federal officials have to get better at setting “predictable” schedules when it comes to purchasing new equipment, Troy Crosby, whose job as assistant deputy minister of materiel is to oversee procurement at the Defence Department, acknowledged in an interview. Yet Crosby believes much of the frustration around military procurement is the result of unrealistic expectations born of a lack of understanding and appreciation for how the system, which is dealing with more projects than at any time in recent history, actually works. “The complexity of what it takes to bring a new piece of equipment into service is extraordinary, and early, early, early in a process, when we don't even know what it is we're going to buy or from where, there's a lot of uncertainty around those schedules,” he told The Canadian Press. “I think people will understand ... you can't nail a date down to a month in a year specifically. And then if you're two days late or two months late or what have you, are you really late or was there just an amount of uncertainty around those schedules to begin with?” As an example, Crosby pointed to the delayed delivery of new search-and-rescue airplanes, where the air force has been wrangling with the manufacturer Airbus over the level of detail that must be in the aircraft's technical manuals before the military will accept the planes. “Three years into the contract, we're behind 18 days,” he said. “That's not a failure. If the standard is perfection, will defence procurement ever be not broken? I'm not sure. I think you're holding us to a pretty amazing standard.” At the same time, Crosby noted that the air force's Buffalo and Hercules airplanes, which have been performing search-and-rescue missions in Canada for decades, continue to operate despite being long past their replacement dates. “Do we want to get (the Forces) even better equipment so they can be even more effective at the job using modern technology? Yes,” said Crosby. “But the Buffalo and those (search-and-rescue) crews are delivering for Canadians now. So I wouldn't want to leave the impression there that suddenly these capabilities don't work.” Yet there have been several examples in recent years of the military either doing without because equipment got too old to use or the government investing taxpayer dollars to keep old gear going longer than anticipated. Those include the navy having been without destroyers for the past few years, the government spending nearly $700 million to lease a temporary supply ship and plans to spend more than $1 billion to keep CF-18 fighters from the 1980s flying to 2032. While some of those problems were caused by political dithering or mismanagement, they nonetheless underscore the real cost of delays. The list of delayed projects produced by the Defence Department included brief explanations for why each procurement has been delayed. Some, such as the purchase of new machine-guns, related to problems with industry and fell outside government's control. Others were afflicted with unforeseen technical issues and many of the delays were the result of “detailed schedule analysis” by government officials, suggesting the original timeframes were unrealistic or otherwise inaccurate. There were also several delays, such as a plan to upgrade the sensors and weapons on the air force's Griffon helicopters, attributed to a shortage of procurement staff and other internal government resources. Despite the delays, Crosby said he felt military procurement is “in a good place,” listing the recent delivery of new armoured vehicles and trucks for the army and the pending arrival of new Arctic patrol ships for the navy and the search-and-rescue planes for the air force. “A lot is moving out,” he said. “There's a lot of movement.” Conservative defence critic James Bezan, however, suggested the delays were the result of Liberal government mismanagement. “The Trudeau Liberals continue to dither and delay when it comes to procuring new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces,” he said in an email. “It is clear that the Trudeau Liberals repeatedly fail when it comes to procuring and upgrading equipment for our military heroes.” Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's press secretary Floriane Bonneville defended the Liberals' record on procurement. “Overall, 90% of procurements are delivered within their planned scope and budget,” she said in a statement. “Our defence plan, Strong, Secure, Engaged, helps build strong, healthy communities and secures well-paying middle class jobs for Canadians. From boots to ships, we will continue to ensure Canada's military is well-equipped for the task at hand.” https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/more-than-100-military-procurements-facing-delays-defence-department-246478/
2 juin 2024 | Local, Terrestre

Minister Blair concludes productive trip to Singapore to strengthen Canada’s defence relations with Indo-Pacific allies and partners
The Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, concluded a visit to Singapore where he led Canada’s delegation to the Shangri-La Dialogue from May 31 to June 2
10 août 2018 | Local, Terrestre

Saudis would only hurt themselves by cancelling Light Armoured Vehicle contract
DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Saudi Arabia is expecting a full apology from Canada for a tweet that raised questions about human rights issues in the Middle East country. It is unlikely that would be coming anytime soon. So the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Canada continues. In recent days, Riyadh suspended diplomatic ties with Canada, expelled the Canadian ambassador and recalled its own envoy to Ottawa after Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and her department criticized the regime on Twitter for its arrest of social activists, demanding their immediate release. Angered by the condemnation, Saudi Arabia has also tried to sting Canada's economy by halting future trade and investment deals and by cancelling lucrative scholarships that would have seen 15,000 of its citizens study in Canada. One media report said Saudi banks and pension funds were ordered to sell off their Canadian assets, although that report remains unconfirmed. Bloomberg News has reported that any move by Saudi Arabia to stop new investments and unload assets in Canada is likely to have limited impact. Saudi assets in Canada are confined mainly to stakes in upscale hotel operators, some small stock holdings in companies like Canadian National Railway and grain facilities, Bloomberg noted. What is interesting is what Saudi Arabia hasn't done. It is still willing to sell oil to Canada and has not put any roadblocks on that money-making venture. The Saudi Press Agency confirmed Thursday that the “diplomatic crisis” wouldn't affect the kingdom's petroleum sales to Canada. But that has also raised questions in Canada about why we are buying oil from Saudi Arabia when we have such large reserves ourselves? The big question is whether the Saudis will withdraw from its $15 billion deal to buy Light Armoured Vehicles from General Dynamics Land Systems of London, Ont.? It could happen but such a move would likely only hurt the Saudis. They need the vehicles and to negotiate a new contract with another arms supplier, plus get delivery of that equipment, could take years. Then there is the supply of parts and other support for the existing LAVs that the Saudis previously purchased from General Dynamics. Would shutting down all links to the LAV supply chain make sense for the Saudis? Finance Minister Bill Morneau said Thursday he was still unsure if the General Dynamics contract would be affected. Defence Watch submitted a series of questions to General Dynamics asking whether it would be halting production of LAVs destined for Saudi Arabia and would GD continue to provide spare parts for LAVs already delivered? “General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada declines to comment,” spokesman Doug Wilson-Hodge stated in an email. Full article: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/saudis-would-only-hurt-themselves-by-cancelling-light-armoured-vehicle-contract

Toutes les nouvelles