News   Nov 25, 2024
 246     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
 438     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
 488     0 

Harper's Management Style and Lebanon

Ottawa overrides its controls on contracts security

DANIEL LEBLANC

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — The Conservative government has used an extraordinary “national security†clause to take control of $8-billion in recently announced military spending, allowing it to dole out contracts to the West, Quebec and the Atlantic.

The federal government lost the power to steer contract work to specific parts of the country with the 1994 signing of the Agreement on Internal Trade with the provinces. But as part of the continuing purchase of new planes and helicopters, the government has decided to invoke a national-security exception (NSE), which effectively removes these contracts from reach of the agreement.

A federal official said the net result is that Ottawa will be able to impose regional quotas on the economic benefits of the contracts.

The process provides additional powers to Industry Minister Maxime Bernier and the rest of the cabinet, which will likely face intense lobbying over the distribution of the benefits from provinces and the industry.

Mr. Bernier has already travelled to the United States to meet with officials from the firm that is most likely to receive the aircraft contracts, Boeing Co.

Before the signing of the 1994 agreement, decisions on major federal contracts were frequently criticized for the weight given to regional political considerations. Provinces and regions were often at odds over access to regional benefits — in which winning bidders are required to spend in Canada the equivalent of their total costs to fulfill the contract.

Conservative officials are well aware that they have more power over the regional benefits for the new planes and helicopters than on previous military purchases, for which the national-security exception was not applied.

“Our challenge is getting high-quality benefits†for Canada, a senior federal official said.

Donald Savoie, a professor at the University of Moncton and an expert in regional development, said the Conservative government is “going one step beyond†previous governments in its effort to oversee the distribution of benefits.

“There is no doubt that the government will be heavily lobbied. Does that provide them with new powers? Absolutely,†Prof. Savoie said.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh said the government is giving itself too much power in the process.

“This could lead to the worst kind of pork-barrelling by this government, behind closed doors, without accountability to anyone in this country,†he said.

Leah Clark, a director-general at Industry Canada, confirmed in an interview that the government is likely to impose quotas in the distribution of the benefits in Canada.

“It is not usually our practice to specify minimums for regions,†she said, adding that the “the use of the NSE allows us to talk about minimums.â€

“The effort here is to make sure that competitive businesses in all parts of Canada get an opportunity to be seen and to be heard,†Ms. Clark said.

Defence procurement has a history of controversy. In 1986 the Mulroney government awarded a $1.4-billion contract for maintaining CF-18 fighter jets to Canadair of Montreal despite the advice from a panel of experts that awarded a higher score to a bid from Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg. An outcry followed in Manitoba and throughout the West.

The Department of National Defence signalled its intent in July to purchase 16 Chinook helicopters and four C-17 transport planes from Boeing at a total cost of $8-billion, including 20 years of in-service support.

Other companies are challenging the government's planned purchases, but many industry observers feel that Boeing is the only company capable of fulfilling the government's requirements for these aircraft.

Given that the Boeing aircraft are almost entirely produced in the United States, the company will be obliged, under the terms of its contract, to spend an amount equivalent to the purchase price in Canada.

“Each acquisition contract will have 100-per-cent industrial benefits right here in Canada, meaning that for every dollar the Government of Canada pays a contractor, the contractor must spend an equivalent amount inside Canada,†Public Works Minister Michael Fortier said in a news release in July.

Other recent military purchases, such as the 2004 acquisitions of 28 Sikorsky helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, were not done under the national-security exception, industry experts said.

A DND spokeswoman said the government invoked the NSE because it wanted to ensure that the in-service support for the aircraft “is done within Canada.â€

------------------------------------
 
For a person who talked so much about accountability his dealings with fiscal imbalances, and now this, are dodgey at best.

So if I understand this right, there is likely to be no benefit of this spending spree for Ontario. And concerning his pledges for increased autonomy for Quebec, all he is really doing is handing over some money (in secret, backroom meetings with Charest no less) and in this case seems to have little problem taking power away from the provinces (which I wouldn't be surprised to see him defend with his typical cries of terrorism and national interests).

And the big winner in all this seems to be the west. Again. And I am sure that as another week passes he will once again show himself to be little more than an Alberta Populist in Federalist clothing.
 
Considering large portions of the C-17 are built in Ontario, there probably will be significant benefits for Ontario. If anything, the West will be shut out. There aren't many aircraft parts built West of Winnipeg.

Kevin
 
It is fascinating to see the filter it is all being passed through. Economic development by way of regional quotas pressed through national security. It will probably result in some fine whine and some votes.
 
What was that all about accountability and "doing things differently"?
 
Other companies are challenging the government's planned purchases, but many industry observers feel that Boeing is the only company capable of fulfilling the government's requirements for these aircraft.
What other aircraft manufacturers could be considered? IIRC, no one else makes heavy lift military spec aircraft in North America besides Boeing. Didn't Boeing buy Lockheed-Martin? If L-M is still independent, then their only choices are the massive C-5 Galaxy, or the little C-130 Hercules (which we already have - albeit older versions).

If we decided to consider European or other aircraft with medium-heavy-lift, long range capability, we could consider the new Airbus A400M military transport, see www.airforce-technology.c...jects/fla/ . This aircaaft is being purchased by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey, UK, South Africa, Chile and Malaysia. I am not sure though is the A400M has the same long range and lift capability of the Boeing.

Antonov ASTC, based in Kiev, Ukraine also continues to make very good heavy lift aircraft. I suspect a huge AN-124 may be overkill for Canada's requirements, but the Russians and Canadians certainly share a cold climate with long spaces between cities and bases. Antonov's next smallest plane is the little AN-70.
 
True...but why the government rejected out of hand formalising the current heavy-lift arrangement, which is leased Il-76s, either with a bigger lease or puchase (either option being about 80% cheaper than C-17s) is mystifying. Canada needs strategic lift, period. But it didn't have to come from Boeing when equally good, and faster-delivered, solutions were available from companies like Skylink.
 
The rejection of the IL-76 skylink option, that may have something to do with skylink itself boardmembers note the former Liberal MND but perhaps there is some ongoing reluctance to purchase or lease aircraft from our former enemies.
 
The Il-76 also has less than half of the payload of a C-17, and far less volume. It quite suimply is unfit for the purpose.

Kevin
 
Well we could buy about ten of them for the same price. That's a lot more payload and volume.
 
Well we could buy about ten of them for the same price. That's a lot more payload and volume.
Or we could buy fifty or more Dash-8s for the same price, combined, again, giving more payload and volume.

Instead, why don't we ask the forces what they need to complete their missions?
 
No, Abeja, we couldn't. 50 Dash 8s would cost a lot more. And if you ask most of the forces what they want for their missions, strategic airlift is pretty low down on the list.
 
Abeja:

Actually, shouldn't we be asking Canadian what do we need heavy lift capability for?

AoD
 
Actually, shouldn't we be asking Canadian(s) what do we need heavy lift capability for?
If we're going to continue to participate in missions to Afghanistan, Bosnia and now perhaps helping to police the Lebanon-Israel border, it would be useful to be able to move our own gear.

Yes, there are alternatives, such as leased Russian aircraft, or renting Canadian civilian airliners, or begging a ride with USAF aircraft. Canada has certainly used this method for most, if not all of our post war deployments when sealift was not utilized. If you're proposing that we stay this course, skip the C-17s, there's certainly merit there. If instead, we accept that the forces are going to get heavy lift capability, let's give them the best reasonable aircraft we can.
 
The C-17 brings NATO compatibility, range, payload and short runway capability. That's why the British just ordered their fifth C-17 and the Australian just ordered four - to support overseas operations into places where facilities aren't great (so A310 is no good) and where the C-130 can't haul it because of weight or size.

The C-17 was supposed to be a leased stopgap for the British until the A400M arrived - and then Airbus Military started announcing project delays - here's the RAF press release detailing the C-17s capabilities and contribution to date (it doesn't include that C-17 went to Cyprus to support their Lebanon evacuation):
www.mod.uk/DefenceInterne...17Deal.htm

The Il-76 is quite an old design now, and doesn't have NATO compatibility. The AN-124 needs huge runways - and if Canada did have a mission for an AN-124 they now have a shared lease with other NATO countries - why buy when you are already in a contract to rent?

The A400M has not had first flight (and a lot of Canadians remember that the Pratt & Whitney Canada engine was overlooked in favour of a European consortium - I don't think that should be a factor but it probably would be).
 

Back
Top