Nouvelles

Soldiers at Petawawa are involved in testing what could be the new camouflage uniform pattern for the Canadian Forces. Known as “Prototype J” the new camouflage pattern is being examined as a possible replacement for both the current arid (tan) and temperate woodland (green) camouflage. Various camouflage patterns were examined as part of the SOCEM (Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization) Project but this is the first to be taken out to the field for a large-scale test. The prototype pattern, developed by Canadian defence scientists, is predominately brown, with some green and black. The addition of more brown in the pattern reflects the desire to bring it more into the middle of the spectrum and is not necessarily tied to a specific operating environment, according to the Canadian Army. The current Canadian Disruptive Pattern, or CADPAT, has been in use since the early 2000s. Here are photos of the new camouflage in use. All photos are by Aviator Melissa Gloude. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/photos-petawawa-soldiers-test-new-camouflage

By Murray Brewster · In order to know what most of the major parties think about the uncertain state of the world, and Canada's place in it, you have to dig — really dig — to find it. The ideas, solutions and proposals around security and defence from the Liberals, New Democrats and the Green Party are buried, in some cases, at the very back of their platform documents. The Conservatives issued a policy statement last spring but have yet to state their campaign platform. And that — along with the dearth of debate about the turbulence beyond the country's borders — has alarmed defence policy experts who say now is not the time for politics as usual. "This is the time we need the clearest, most strategic thinking since the end of the Second World War, in terms of how we do Canadian security," said Rob Huebert, a defence expert at the University of Calgary. "It is not an exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the most dangerous geopolitical environment we've seen in our lifetime." The rise of authoritarianism throughout the globe, notably in China and Russia, and the undermining of Western democracies through a variety of circumstances has increased the likelihood of conflict in the eyes of many experts. The retreat of the United States from its traditional role in the globe has enormous consequences for Canadian domestic policy. Yet, Huebert said, there is "a total lack of meaningful discussion about the type of direction we need to be taking" by the Liberals and the other parties in the campaign. The conventional Canadian political calculus is that issues of security and defence policy are not vote-getters and previous elections, with one or two exceptions, have borne out that notion with ballot box issues being defined by either social or pocketbook considerations. Huebert, however, describes it as a "very disturbing calculation" at this moment in time. He is not alone in his concern. "There's a lot going on, but near radio silence," said Dave Perry, a senior analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "I'm surprised every political party in this country has been muted on these topics." The Liberal platform, released Sunday, recycles the title of their marquee defence policy, delivered in 2017 — Strong, Secure and Engaged. The new campaign document's foreign policy and defence section is titled: "Keeping Canada Strong, Secure and Engaged," and offers up as a pledge to "renew Canada's commitment to peacekeeping efforts," which harkens back to the Liberal election platform in 2015. "To ensure that Canada continues to make a positive contribution to international peace and security, we will move forward with new investments to support United Nations peacekeeping efforts — with more help to advance the women, peace, and security agenda; support conflict prevention and peacebuilding; and respond to grave human rights abuses," said the Liberal 2019 platform. The document does not explain what the new investment might look like, but the Liberals say they're committed to spending additional $50 million per year on UN peacekeeping commitments. Liberal commitment in 2019 echoes 2015 However, Walter Dorn, a professor of defence studies at the Canadian Forces College and one of the country's preeminent experts on peacekeeping, said he finds the overall language of the Liberal promise curious. "Those were the same words used by Liberals in 2015," he said. "So, are they renewing it because they haven't done it in the last four years?" Dorn said the Liberal government, for a variety of reasons, did not get substantially engaged in peacekeeping during its mandate. It made a number of splashy commitments at an international meeting in Vancouver in 2017, but only delivered a year-long deployment of helicopters to Mali and the more recent secondment of a C-130J Hercules transport for United Nations operations in Africa. "I hope they can learn from their first term," said Dorn. "Their performance is going to have to be much better if they're going to renew Canada's commitment to peacekeeping and secure a seat on the [UN] Security Council." He also noted the "average number" of uniform personnel deployed in UN peacekeeping missions under the Liberals was lower than during the former Conservative government era. There's a promise in the Liberal platform to focus international military training activities to include instruction for other countries on how to respond to "disasters due to climate change." NDP, Greens light on detail The NDP's platform, released weeks ago, also leans heavily on peacekeeping, but also promises to work toward nuclear disarmament. The Green Party makes a similar pledge, but also nods tentatively toward the instability beyond our borders. "Canada now needs a general purpose, combat-capable force that can provide realistic options to the government in domestic security emergencies, continental defence and international operations," said the Green's recently released platform. Last spring, the Conservatives released a detailed foreign and defence policy statement that promised to buy new submarines, join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and expand the current military mission in Ukraine. But how much of that will make it into the party's campaign platform is unclear. It is expected to be unveiled soon. The Liberal platform pays specific attention to the Arctic, but within a foreign policy context promising to "strengthen continental defence" and in the North, moving "forward with better developed surveillance and rapid response capabilities." Huebert was left scratching his head. "That blurs together so many talking points, it creates a sense of nothingness," he said. There is no mention of NORAD modernization, including the planned replacement of the North Warning System chain of radar stations, a cost-shared endeavour with the United States that some experts have estimated could cost up to $11 billion (with Canadian taxpayers on the hook for 40 per cent or roughly $5 billion of that bill.) Huebert said, when the Liberals talk about "rapid response capabilities," they're referring to better search and rescue coverage in the North, something he said will become a necessity as more and more regions become ice-free in the summer. "Problem is: We just don't know what they're talking about," he said. A Liberal campaign spokeswoman said the party understands how crucial it is to support the Canadian military and pointed to the government's defence policy as well as all of the social improvements that have been made for serving members. "Our platform lays out our vision for moving our country forward and how we plan to build on the progress we have made over the past four years," said Eleanore Catenaro. Canada supported the UN with "real capabilities," she said, adding that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau addressed the uncertainty in the world in a foreign policy speech at the end of August. New framework for intelligence Interestingly, the platform specifically promises to create "a new framework governing how Canada gathers, manages and uses defence intelligence." That caught the attention of Perry who said the promise was likely red-circled by officials at the Department of National Defence. Few Canadians realize that the military is home to the largest intelligence organization in the federal government, in terms of sheer numbers. Precise figures are hard to establish, but the defence intelligence establishment is believed to be the country's second-best-funded intelligence organization The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, earlier this year, signalled it wanted to see the military's intelligence branch put on a tighter legislative leash, similar to legal constraints on civilian spy agencies. The committee recommended the Liberal government think seriously about drafting specific laws to govern how and under what circumstances military intelligence missions can take place. The Liberal platform promises to create a specific defence procurement agency, which is curious in the sense that a series of government ministers and senior officials have lauded how well military procurement has been going since the Liberals came to power. "There is a bit of a disconnect here," said Perry. "The message [with the platform promise] is that you're not happy with the way procurement has gone and you want it to go differently, better or make some substantive change." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fed-elxn-world-1.5303672

By Paul Lungen, Staff Reporter Col. Amos Nachmani has been in Canada for a couple of years now and, along with his family, he's embraced the cold. It's not something he's used to, coming as he does from warm weather Israel. Winter snow and skiing are something they've learned to enjoy, so while they're here, they'll take full advantage of it. As Israel's defence attaché in Ottawa, his sojourn in Canada is slated to last three years. But it's a busy three years, during which he represents the Israeli military and serves as a liaison to the Canadian Armed Forces. It turns out that there is a great deal of co-operation between the two militaries – everything from the exchange of ideas, to trade in hardware. Nachmani, a former tank combatant, infantry battalion officer and intelligence officer, is one of only 22 international military attachés stationed in Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces liaises with other militaries from around the world, but most of them are based in Washington, D.C. Yet ever since then-prime minister Stephen Harper and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to a greater level of military co-operation in 2011, Israel has stationed a military attaché to Canada. At the same time, Canada has its own attaché in Tel Aviv. Military co-operation between the two countries has continued under both Conservative and Liberal governments. “Our relationship is robust and totally agnostic to the notion of who is in power,” Nachmani said. Nachmani said he engages “regularly with the different services in the Canadian Armed Forces, to understand your capabilities, your needs, your plans, in order to see where we can help each other out.” During his time in Canada, he has been invited to military briefings, witnessed exercises and visited bases. In 2017, Nachmani joined former Canadian chief of the defence staff, Gen. Thomas J. Lawson, to discuss “The Future of the Israel-NATO Strategic Partnership.” On Nov. 11 for the past two years, Nachmani laid a wreath during the Remembrance Day ceremony at the National War Memorial in Ottawa. He's discussed with his Canadian colleagues “force buildup,” in which they share tactical methodologies, best practices and partake in military diplomacy. The idea, he said, is to find areas of common interest, “bridge gaps and find common solutions,” and make sure his Canadian counterparts understand “our side of the picture.” How does that translate in a practical sense? Nachmani points to Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, where our military was part of an international effort to fight al-Qaida. Canadian forces had unfortunate experiences with improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which caused casualties. “This is a serious problem. We also encountered this in the past in southern Lebanon and Gaza,” Nachmani said. The two militaries addressed the problem jointly by engaging in research and development of a system that would warn of concealed IEDs. “That brought a good, robust solution and both militaries have implemented it,” Nachmani said. Trade is also part of the military relationship between the two countries. Altogether, Israel defence industries sell to Canada an annual average of a little under US$100 million ($133 million) in military hardware, mostly radar and electronic warfare equipment, he said. Prior to moving to Ottawa, Nachmani commanded the IDF's International Cooperation Unit, where he met Canadian officers. For other militaries, the IDF “is a very valuable partner and ally for a country like Canada, due to our deep understanding of the situation in the Middle East, our intelligence capabilities and assessment, and our operational experience,” he said. Canada has sent troops to Afghanistan, on peacekeeping missions and to Iraq to fight ISIS. Canada turns to Israel, and others, for added value in learning ways to understand the Middle East, he said. From his experience interacting with Canadian soldiers, Nachmani believes the IDF and the Canadian Forces share many values: “These are two Western allies that value the Western way of living, liberal values, law-abiding militaries and countries.” Both have a respect for human life and always try to minimize collateral damage in their operations, he added. While Canada is much larger in size than Israel, its Armed Forces are much smaller. They include only 65,000 career soldiers and another 35,000 reservists. Israel has about 40,000 career soldiers, along with 100,000 conscripts serving at any one time. In times of emergency, it can call up as many as 650,000 soldiers, he said. As for the differences between Israeli and Canadian soldiers, Nachmani pointed out that when Canadians are deployed, they're often sent to the other side of the world. “They don't think how this will affect the people at home,” he said, whereas the average Israeli soldier is usually deployed an hour drive from home, so the attacks on Israel feel personal. https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/israeli-defence-attache-cultivates-ties-with-canadian-military

Once again this year, nearly 150 players in the aeronautics industry met at the Centre d'excellence sur les drones (CED) for the second edition of Tech Demo, where the remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) community got together to share technological advances. During this event, which took place on Sept. 25 and 26 in Alma, Que., participants learned more about the latest developments from Transport Canada, the Royal Canadian Air Force and Royal Canadian Navy, and the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). They also attended various conferences exploring drone image recognition, multi-mission systems, the niche of excellence in civil and commercial UAVs, ways to reduce time to market through drone simulation and trends in the drone ecosystem. Guests also had the opportunity to discuss issues related to operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS), and take part in three panels about anti-UAV systems and airspace management. Seven system demonstrations were also carried out during the event, including one featuring a mastodon weighing more than 300 kilograms. “This autonomous system was developed for various surveillance and civil security missions by Quebec company Laflamme in collaboration with the American company General Dynamics. It was the first public technological demonstration of this system in Quebec, which generated a great deal of interest from the stakeholders present,” commented CED director general Marc Moffatt. He also added that, once again this year, the activity welcomed several major manufacturers, including Bell Helicopter, Bombardier, General Atomics, CAE, L3, Leonardo, and many others. According to CED president Alain Fortin, hosting an event like Tech Demo is very significant for the industry. “The drone community needs events around which to gather to feed each other. We are obviously thrilled with the scope of this second edition and, above all, very proud of the quality of the speakers in attendance. Several actors who orchestrate the development of drone regulation in Canada were among us over the past two days to listen to what the community had to teach them and to learn more about the potential of the CED,” said Fortin. “Our speakers come from all over the world, including the United States, England, Italy and even Ukraine. Over the years, the CED and its partners have built a whole regional ecosystem around the drone and we can see now that its strategic role in the development of this sector is recognized and well established,” he added. Made possible with the financial support from the Ministère de l'Économie et de l'Innovation as well as General Dynamics Missions Systems, Kongsberg Geospatial Ltd. and CAE, the event has become a major annual event that is eagerly awaited by the industry. https://www.skiesmag.com/press-releases/rpas-community-gathers-for-tech-demo-2

By DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Shortly before he retired, Pat Finn, the Department of National Defence's procurement chief, told this newspaper there was always a risk that some companies would drop out of the future fighter jet competition but that extra efforts had been made to ensure the process was fair. “We're not getting all kinds of signals that (companies are) losing interest” in bidding, Finn said in an interview July 23. On Aug. 30, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence and Airbus Defence and Space informed the Canadian government of their decision to withdraw from Canada's future fighter competition. Airbus had been offering Canada the Eurofighter. At the time the Canadian Press news service reported the Eurofighter withdrawal was a surprise. It wasn't. For the last nine months the various competing firms, Boeing, Airbus and Saab have been sounding the alarm about how the fighter jet process is structured and their worry that it is stacked in favour of the Lockheed Martin F-35. The RCAF, which originally selected the F-35 as the CF-18 replacement before that selection was put on hold by the previous Conservative government because of cost and technical issues, came up with the new requirements. Industry representatives say these requirements highlight the strengths of the F-35 such as stealth and a first strike capability. The primary role of the new fighter jets is to protect North America, or so government officials have said. Lockheed Martin's industry rivals question how stealth and a first strike capability fit into that role. Representatives from Lockheed Martin's competitors have also made overtures to federal officials about their concerns about the procurement process but say they received little response. In early July Reuters news service reported that both Airbus and Boeing were considering dropping out. Airbus followed through on its concerns and as noted decided it wasn't worth competing because of how the process was designed. Last year the European firm Dassault informed the Canadian government it would not be competing in the competition. It had been planning to offer Canada the Rafale fighter jet. There were two key changes in the $19 billion procurement that caused Airbus to leave. One was the decision to change the industrial benefits needed for the program. Airbus was willing to outline and guarantee specific industrial benefits for Canada. That was the way previous defence procurements had worked. But that has been changed because of concerns the U.S. government raised for Lockheed Martin. U.S. officials had warned that the F-35 development agreement Canada signed years ago prohibits partners from imposing requirements for industrial benefits. Although Canada is a partner in the development of the aircraft that does not stipulate it is required to buy the F-35. But under the F-35 agreement, partner nations such as Canada are prohibited from demanding domestic companies receive specific work on the fighter jet. Instead, Canadian firms compete and if they are good enough they receive contracts. Over the last 12 years, Canadian firms have earned more than $1.3 billion in contracts to build F-35 parts. But there are no guarantees. The other problem that Airbus and Rafale faced was linked to the requirement that bidders need to show how their aircraft will integrate into the U.S.-Canada system to defend North America. Airbus would have been required to show how it planned to integrate the Eurofighter Typhoon into the U.S.-Canadian system without knowing the system's full technical details, the Canadian Press news service pointed out. Saab, which is offering Canada the Gripen fighter, could be facing the same problem. Boeing, which is considering offering the Super Hornet, would not have such a problem as its aircraft is being flown by the U.S. military. It is still unclear, however, whether Boeing or Saab will even continue in the competition. Bids must be submitted by the spring of 2020 but there is a growing sense among the defence industry that the F-35 will ultimately be selected as the new aircraft for the RCAF. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/will-other-firms-withdraw-from-fighter-jet-competition-leaving-f-35-last-plane-standing

By Byron Callan This year has shaped up as a record one in terms of the volume of major defense transactions so far announced. Considering deals of $100 million or more in announced value where defense is the primary factor, the 2019 total exceeds $61 billion. Of course, the largest single example is the Raytheon-United Technologies Corp. (UTC) merger. There are reasons to expect heightened activity in 2019 and 2020. Some reasons are known and others can be assessed, but one that does not appear to be affecting market expectations is the Raytheon-UTC deal. Since it was announced on June 9, the companies' share prices have declined from the June 7, close: Raytheon's by 4% and UTC's by 5.7%. The S&P 500 has been flat. However, share prices of peers have risen—General Dynamics is up 5.4%, L3Harris Technologies has increased 6.2%, Lockheed Martin and Leidos have climbed 7% and Northrop Grumman is up 14.4%. These price moves may be attributable to safe-haven seeking by investors who were spooked by global economic concerns and trade wars, but the budget deal reached by Congress also was a factor, as were July earnings reports. The price reactions, however, do not suggest that investors are particularly concerned about the impact of the competitive strength of the Raytheon-UTC union and its ability to take market share away from peers. Nor do they suggest that the deal will trigger a rush by defense-focused companies to merge with commercial ones. Were the latter to be the case, the price reactions may have been similar to Raytheon and United Technologies'. There have been other known developments that raise the question of what is next. Kaman Corp. sold its industrial distribution business for $700 million and will seek to redeploy that capital into engineering products businesses, some of which could involve defense. L3Harris signaled in June that it is undertaking a portfolio cleanup after the completion of the merger, and so there should be divestitures from that company. Textron announced in August that it was reviewing “strategic alternatives” for Kautex, which makes blow-molded fuel systems and other parts primarily for the automotive industry. Presuming that it leads to a sale of that business, Textron will have cash, some of which might be spent on defense. There are general factors as well that could spawn sector merger and acquisition activity in 2019-20. One of the biggest is the potential uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the 2020 U.S. elections. Buyers and sellers have to weigh a number of variables. If the current administration is reelected and control of Congress remains split at least through 2022, then it may be safe to assume that the status quo will continue. One variable within the status quo is how contractor portfolios could be affected by the ongoing efforts of the Pentagon to better align its programs with the National Defense Strategy. Like the Army's “night court” process, this may yet spawn a reassessment of specific programs and their future growth outlook. But if the status quo does not prevail, defense contractors could face a wall of uncertainties in 2020 and may choose to act before rather than after these uncertainties are clarified. First, they will have to assess which Democratic candidate could win the primary cycle and then the nomination. If it is a centrist candidate, the Defense Department spending outlook might not change all that much, although exports to some countries might be curtailed and there could be changes in some Pentagon budget priorities, particularly for nuclear forces modernization. A more progressive-leaning candidate might raise the risk of a more subdued defense budget outlook, particularly if fiscal resources are instead directed toward health care, infrastructure, student debt and other nondefense priorities. Second, there will have to be an assessment of whether a Democratic win of the White House could also flip control of the Senate to the Democrats. If there is a Democrat in the White House but a Republican majority in the Senate, the Senate could still check budgets or policies that may be detrimental to defense. It might also block efforts to roll back changes to tax laws made in 2017. A third variable to be assessed is the attitude of a new administration toward defense mergers and acquisitions, contractor financing and risk. A more progressive administration could look very differently at the structure and financial status of contractors. All these variables will lead to different analyses of current and future value in defense. Is it a good time to hunker down and wait to see what happens or to act in the time that remains in 2019-20 before investors and creditors draw their own conclusions? These uncertainties alone suggest that some will act in anticipation of a change rather than just wait and see. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-after-major-mergers-what-s-next-defense-market

Governments may be open for business, but that doesn't mean doing business with a government is necessarily easy. Government procurement is complex - this is not by happenstance. The rules on public procurement stem from a number of sources including law (trade agreements, the common law and legislation) and policy. It can be a painful and costly learning curve for companies that want to sell goods and services to the country's largest buyers if they don't understand the rules. Government decision-makers are answerable to a very wide range of stakeholders, including the Canadian voters who put them in office and the Canadian taxpayers who fund their operations. In a public procurement, it's not just about getting the best deal – it is also about meeting the broader public interest and achieving long-term policy objectives. The Goal is to Promote Fairness Competition is the rule in public procurement because it offers a fair, open and transparent environment, and meets the public objective that all potential suppliers get a fair kick at the can to sell to government. This is important when you consider that, for example, the Department of National Defence is the largest Canadian purchaser of goods and services from the Canadian defence industry. Canada has implemented several trade agreements in the past few years, including the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), and the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) (which replaced the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)). Understanding how these agreements impact procurement is even more important for suppliers and their federal, provincial and territorial government customers, as well as for the municipal, academic, school and hospital (MASH) sector which may now be subject to trade agreements for the first time or subject to additional or new rules brought about by these new trade agreements. Prepare your RFP Response Team for a Long Haul Businesses must understand the processes that come into play in public procurements, such as the need to resource their RFP response team for a long period of time or the impact of failing to meet mandatory RFP requirements (disqualification from the procurement process). Learning to manage the length of time it takes to progress through a procurement cycle, and to navigate the processes, is a big challenge. In business, relationships matter, but developing a good working relationship with key decision makers in government departments or agencies can be difficult since government tends to have greater workforce mobility and people change in and out of roles frequently. Further, dealing with government means complying with lobbying law and conflict of interest rules. In many jurisdictions, discussions about procurement requirements outside of public solicitation processes is considered lobbying, as it is attempting to sell products or services to the government. Conflict of interest rules may also preclude certain people from doing business with government officials. Approaching public procurement with a "commercial-centric" view often leads to frustration. The federal government does understand "how business works," but there are still many aspects of a public procurement that are not (and cannot be) commercially focused, including those related to complying with applicable trade agreements, protecting the public interest, and serving policy objectives such as regional development and economic diversification. Companies participating in a public sector procurement process face unique compliance requirements that don't come into play with a typical private commercial transaction. Expect Heightened Security Requirements With the increasing attention being paid to cybersecurity and data protection, companies will find they are now subject to more stringent security requirements, including an increased requirement for product functionality and security control disclosure in advance of their products or services being accepted by government buyers. This level of disclosure can extend through to greater access to the underlying technology used so that the customer itself can test for, and understand, cyber-threat vulnerabilities. Whether this is your first foray into the world of government procurement – and you need to understand the rules of public procurement so that you can properly understand the RFP documents and the plethora of government policies – or you have a broader interest focused on influencing government policy and direction as it relates to your business or your industry, knowing how to best position your organization to take advantage of both possible routes is critical to a successful government procurement business. Waiting until you have lost a bid is too late to effect a change for your organization's benefit. Be Proactive with the Right Advice Regardless of your focus, knowing how the system works and how to best advocate for your interests is a crucial and part of any successful business plan. Working with a legal team that has knowledge and experience in all of these areas and can assist with strategic planning and approach from start to finish is critical to success. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4d2ced7d-7e1a-47f0-bf39-ced9b8a0b39d

DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN The Canadian government is looking for buyers for the OTO Melara 76mm guns removed from the Royal Canadian Navy's Iroquois-class destroyers. All Iroquois-class ships have been decommissioned, and systems that were strictly associated with that class, have been declared surplus, according to the Department of National Defence. The five 76mm gun systems and associated spare parts from these ships were declared surplus in 2015 and 2016 and are moving through the disposal process, noted DND spokesman Andrew McKelvey. But the DND has decided not to provide the guns to museums. Instead they are being sold. Two of the guns were sold last year to the French Defence Ministry for undisclosed amount. The sale of the other guns is being coordinated by Public Services and Procurement Canada. The guns are up for sale to Canadian allies or approved buyers within the defence industry. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/guns-from-iroquois-class-destroyers-up-for-sale

Three years ago the North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad) charged the Canadian army with providing an inventory of all military bases and surrounding infrastructure. The Americans were looking to spot vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure that could be used in a potential cyber attack. The several-year-old request was detailed in a letter sent by former Norad Commander and U.S. Admiral William Gourtney to the Canadian Chief of Defence Staff, Jonathan Vance. In the letter Gourtney requested that Canada “identify and mitigate” potential areas of vulnerability on Canadian bases, specifically those “installations that are critical for accomplishing Norad missions.” The letter was delivered on March 24, 2016. Furthermore, it asked Vance to “advocate developing capabilities to respond to cyber incidents on CAF [infrastructure control systems] and defend CAF if required.” The request also expanded to identifying civilian infrastructure through cooperation with Public Safety Canada and “developing processes for reporting cyber incidents on the identified civilian infrastructure.” According to cyber expert, David Masson, vulnerability arises in “operational technology systems” that run tasks in critical infrastructure. Masson claims that these systems are extremely difficult to secure. “There's lots of them. Look at it as 50, 60, 70 different bespoke communications systems. There's no real standardization because they're so old. Many of them were never expected to be connected to the internet,” said Masson. Despite this, Masson claims that the systems can be reinforced and secured. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/norad-asked-canada-to-review-cybersecurity-around-civilian-infrastructure-and-army-bases/