Retour aux nouvelles

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

  • CAF inks deal with Bombardier to replace two 30-year-old Challenger aircraft

    8 juin 2020 | Local, Aérospatial

    CAF inks deal with Bombardier to replace two 30-year-old Challenger aircraft

    The Government of Canada recently announced it is replacing two Bombarder Challenger 601 utility aircraft with two Challenger 650s for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to allow for continuation of mission critical roles. The retiring aircraft that entered service in the 1980s fall short of operational requirements and are nearly obsolete due to new rules in the United States and Europe that will restrict their ability to fly internationally before the end of this year. The replacement ensures CAF can continue to operate a modern and flexible utility flight service fleet that serves a variety of roles — including reconnaissance and liaison missions with international partners, and the speedy deployment of specialized capabilities and expertise, including the Disaster Assistance Response Team. Without this needed replacement, the Royal Canadian Air Force's operational effectiveness for missions would be limited. The aircraft are used for the medical evacuation of military personnel serving overseas and the safe transport of CAF medical personnel and specialized equipment in the critical first few hours and days of someone being wounded. They are also used for the safe extraction and repatriation of personnel and citizens. The fleet further provides the ability to transport specialized teams from Canada to operational theatres around the world. Earlier this month, a Challenger quickly brought Royal Canadian Navy search experts to Naples, Italy, to support the search for the Cyclone helicopter lost in the Ionian Sea. This fleet provides critical abilities here at home. It has been used in the whole-of-government effort to support Northern, Indigenous and remote communities during COVID-19. In May 2020, it supported the delivery of COVID-19 testing supplies to Nunavut. The aircraft have been at the ready to help provincial and territorial partners with medical evacuations, if required. This fleet is also critical in facilitating the travel of senior government officials, as well as Parliamentarians from all parties due to security and safety considerations. The CAF's existing Challenger fleet consists of four aircraft, two purchased in the early 1980s and two purchased in the early 2000s. With the implementation of new international regulatory and interoperability requirements in 2020, only half of the fleet is fully compliant with international standards. That is why the Department of National Defence has been working on this consolidation initiative since 2018, and why the government entered into a contract with Bombardier this week, after negotiating the most cost-effective option for these capabilities, which were accounted and paid with existing funds in SSE's fiscal framework. The Challenger 650 aircraft is the current production version of the model that the CAF currently operates. This commonality will result in significant benefits in efficiency, cost, and interoperability, both in terms of training and support to operations. “This purchase is another example of our government's commitment to provide the Canadian Armed Forces with the modern equipment they need to carry out the critical work we ask of them. This fleet is a crucial operational capability and ensuring its continuity is another important investment in our women and men in uniform,” said Harjit S. Sajjan, minister of National Defence. “While helping to fulfill the Royal Canadian Air Force's (RCAF) operational requirements, this purchase also demonstrates our commitment to Canada's world-class aerospace industry. Having this ready, off-the-shelf option also offers long-term value to the RCAF and to Canada,” said Anita Anand, minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada. https://www.skiesmag.com/news/caf-inks-deal-with-bombardier-to-replace-two-30-year-old-challenger-aircraft

  • HÉROUX-DEVTEK ANNOUNCES MAJOR MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

    5 août 2022 | Local, Aérospatial

    HÉROUX-DEVTEK ANNOUNCES MAJOR MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT

    /CNW Telbec/ - Héroux-Devtek Inc. (TSE: HRX) ("Héroux-Devtek", the "Corporation" or the "Company"), a leading international manufacturer of aerospace products...

  • Ottawa on track to invest less on new military kit than promised for second year

    12 novembre 2018 | Local, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre

    Ottawa on track to invest less on new military kit than promised for second year

    OTTAWA — For the second year in a row, the federal government is expected to spend billions of dollars less on new military equipment than promised because of a combination of good and bad news: cost savings on some projects and delays in others. The Trudeau government in 2016 released a new defence policy that included dramatic increases in spending on new aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and other military equipment over the next 20 years. The investments are vital to replacing the Canadian Forces' fighter jets, ships and various other types of aging equipment with state-of-the-art kit. Yet while new budget documents filed in the House of Commons show the Department of National Defence has so far been given authority to spend $4 billion this fiscal year, the policy had predicted total spending of $6.5 billion. The department does have until March 31 — when the federal government's fiscal year ends — to make up the $2.5-billion difference, but its top civilian official, deputy minister Jody Thomas, admitted Thursday that a large shortfall is likely. Part of the reason is that the department expects to save about $700 million on various projects that ended up costing less than planned, Thomas told The Canadian Press following a committee appearance on Parliament Hill. “We've delivered things more efficiently than was anticipated and so we don't need the money,” she said. “And we can apply it to projects, either new projects or projects that have a cost overrun.” But delays moving some projects through the military procurement system have also caused their fair share of problems, Thomas said, and the department is expecting to have to put off $1 billion to $1.3 billion in purchases it had planned to make this year. “We'd like to (spend) $6 billion every year. Can I guarantee to you that we're going to do that? No, there's slowdowns in projects, there's slowdowns with suppliers, there's changes in scope. Things change,” she said. “I'm hoping to get it below $1 billion. I'm not committing to getting it to below $1 billion. ... We're driving projects to get it as low as possible and spend funds efficiently and effectively. We're not wasting money.” The government spent $2.3 billion less than planned last year. That was also largely because of delays in projects such as the government's multibillion-dollar plan to buy new warships, though also because some things ended up costing less than expected. The government does deserve credit for having increased investments in equipment to levels not seen since the height of the war in Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011, said defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “And if they can actually move as much as the deputy (minister) was saying, and they only leave $1 billion on the table, that will be the best year in the last several decades,” said Perry, who has previously warned that delays in the procurement system could derail the defence policy. “But there are a bunch of impacts from not being able to spend money on schedule. One is you don't have the actual gear to do what you want. And project budgets lose purchasing power when money is not spent on schedule. So it's not good to have delays.” https://windsorstar.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/ottawa-on-track-to-invest-less-on-new-military-kit-than-promised-for-second-year

Toutes les nouvelles