![]() |
| Tim Page is the President of the Canadian Defence and Security Industries Association (CADSI). |
We believe that these objectives are not mutually exclusive. Every country with an industrial base and strategic political leadership exercises their option to leverage benefits to their own country from defence procurements. We acknowledge that pursuit of these objectives is more difficult in a climate of political uncertainty and extremely high stakes for both the military and for Canadian industry.
CADSI suggests the following:
Let me elaborate on these three points:
Establish clear political direction
To achieve best results on a government wide basis, there is a need for a Cabinet level, whole of government strategic consideration of how to leverage best value from defence procurements.
Canada (unlike France, the U.K., the U.S., Denmark, Norway, Australia, or others), has not been seen to leverage meaningful benefit to its economic, technology, trade and industrial interests. If it were to do so, it would identify specific sectors and technologies in Canada’s economic and industrial base that are deemed to be in Canada’s long-term strategic domestic security interests and where Canada has a real opportunity to be globally competitive. And it would ensure that those interests are successfully secured by negotiating direct domestic content requirements into the chosen platform and by securing indirect benefits that are meaningful and value-added to the Canadian economy and Canada’s international competitiveness. The first step is to ensure that Canada establishes clear strategic objectives it wishes to secure from defence procurements.
Engage industry early in the process
Industry has long expressed concern over the multi-year, internal, non-consultative process engaged in by CF project teams as they develop “performance” criteria for specific procurements that become defined more by the desired platform than by the desired mission outcome.
Producing a mutually agreed definition of a true performance based competitive procurement process that does not result in a pre-determined outcome would be a good first step. Engaging industry at the earliest stage of project concept and inviting industry innovation to provide the Canadian Forces with mission-consistent solutions would be a second positive step forward. Enhancing CF and industry technology cooperation and increasing CF outreach opportunities to Canadian industry would be further positive steps to a stronger CF understanding of Canadian capabilities.
Retain an independent, external advisor
The introduction of an independent, external advisor on defence procurements would be a good way to bridge current communication challenges between industry and the CF as it relates to defence procurement. It would be beneficial to the Canadian Forces because it would allow the CF to refer concerns over the process to an independent fairness advisor whose job would be to ensure fairness, transparency and an opportunity for all viable product or service options to be considered. The role of an external advisor would be appreciated by industry which would feel that there were adequate checks and balances in the procurement system to ensure that pre-determined choices would not be the outcome of major defence procurements.
These ideas are intended as constructive suggestions to expedite and facilitate procurement, provide the military with its required new equipment while at the same time, and without compromise, maximize Canadian economic, trade and industrial opportunities that should naturally flow from major defence procurements.
© FrontLine Magazines 2006Copyright © 2006 FrontLine Defence, Beacon Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.