“Losing soldiers was a shock to everybody’s system”

By macleans.ca - Monday, March 4, 2013 at 7:00 AM - 0 Comments

Photographs by Blair Gable

Peter MacKay has been minister of national defence since 2007, and before that served as the first foreign minister in Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. At 47, he’s a political veteran. As the last leader of the old Progressive Conservatives, he bargained with Stephen Harper to unite the right under the new Conservative banner. He has presided over the Canadian army’s historic mission in Afghanistan, but also been widely criticized for his handling of the government’s controversial plan to buy F-35 fighter jets. He spoke to Maclean’s in his Parliament Hill office.

Q: The war in Afghanistan profoundly changed the way many Canadians think about their military. But now that we’re out of combat, and committed to ending our troops’ role training the Afghan National Army in the spring of 2014, what are we likely to have accomplished?

A: I think we’ve given Afghan people hope. And I say that knowing everything stems from security in that country, as it does in most countries. Along with our international allies, along with the Afghans, we’ve built schools, immunized children, promoted women’s inclusivity in their society, in their parliament. So there are many tangible things you can point to. But the sense that young Afghans have that there’s a better future, fragile though it may be, is an enormous accomplishment.

Q: But how can we have any confidence that the Afghan National Army will be able to take over holding the Taliban at bay when Canada and other international forces, especially the U.S., finally withdraw?

A: Well, that is obviously the concern. Two questions remain. When will the Americans leave? And is the [goal of training] 352,000 combined Afghan army and police sufficient? But to me the bigger question is governance. Will the Afghan government be able to adequately fund and support that security force throughout the entire country? One scenario that has to be in the back of your mind is, if they decide to reduce that number by 100,000, do we want well-armed, well-trained young Afghans outside the military with nothing to do?

Continue…

Canadian military losing as much ‘teeth’ as ‘tail’ in budget cuts: expert

By The Canadian Press - Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 8:46 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – Money being cut from National Defence will inevitably slice into the Canadian military’s ability to carry out sustained missions at home and abroad, a defence expert says.

A new set of estimates tabled this week in Parliament, ahead of the federal budget, suggest all three branches will feel the pain of austerity in something known as “readiness.”

That’s the amount of money the Defence Department spends to keep soldiers, sailors and aircrew, as well as their equipment and vehicles, trained and ready to deploy to trouble spots in Canada and around the world.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made clear in a pointed letter to Defence Minister Peter MacKay last year he wanted readiness preserved and more attention paid to cutting administration, or “the tail.”

Harper reinforced the message at the induction of the country’s new defence chief last fall, telling Gen. Tom Lawson he must aim for “more teeth and less tail” and to “ensure administrative burdens are reduced and resources freed up for the front line.”

But this week’s spending projections, which could change when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivers his budget in a few weeks, show as much as $1 billion out of a possible total of $2.3 billion in cuts will come out of military readiness.

Overall defence is set to lose more than 10 per cent of its budget this year, but defence sources said the impact on individual branches will be much deeper.

The army could lose as much as 22 per cent of its spending power and the navy faces a reduction of between 17 and 20 per cent, said well-informed sources.

The air force faces a slightly smaller reduction.

More cuts are expected next year as a series overseas commitments come to an end, and the government has not budgeted for new ones.

Defence expert Dave Perry, who conducted a groundbreaking analysis last fall of the impact the Conservative austerity drive on the military, said the balance of planned cuts does not reflect what the prime minister ordered.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, MacKay defended the government’s record of investing in the military.

“Let me inject a little reality into the House,” he said.

“In fact, the Conservative government has seen increases of roughly 34 per cent in the defence budget since 2005-06. Let us roll the clock back when this member was part of the (Liberal) government that presided over a decade of darkness, that saw the Canadian Forces rusted out.”

He didn’t address the details of impending cuts, but has noted in several speeches defence intends to do its part to rein in the deficit.

A spokeswoman for MacKay added late Tuesday that reductions have been expected.

“With the return to a more (regular) operational tempo after the end of our combat mission in Afghanistan, our spending levels will naturally be reduced,” said Paloma Aguilar in an email.

But the cumulative effect of the reductions, as they are currently laid out, will be felt on the country’s ability to sustain missions once they’re ordered, Perry said.

An initial force could go into the field for a few months, but less high-level training and preparation means that extended commitments, like the Kandahar mission, would be almost impossible to organize.

The country would be back to the state it was early in the Afghan war, where it could only join Allied missions for six months at a time, Perry said.

The cuts to the front line are approaching the severity of ones made 20 years ago under both Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien’s governments, he added.

“The pace of reduction during this round of austerity started three years ago, is roughly comparable to what it was in the early 90s,” said Perry, a defence researcher at Carleton University and the Conference of Defence Associations.

When adjusted for inflation, the Canadian military shrank by almost 30 per cent during the last round of cuts.

He said the cuts will need to extend into next year’s budget to surpass the so-called decade of darkness, the term Conservatives use to describe Liberal treatment of the military.

Reductions in the 1990s were made over longer period and the compressed, tighter timelines of the Harper government’s agenda will bite, Perry added.

“It’s hard to make an exact comparison, but this looks like a significant amount of money coming out over a shorter period of time.”

He’s not surprised defence is expected to make up over half the anticipated cuts in the 2013 budget.

“It’s really hard to balance the books unless you cut DND, or unless you are prepared to be absolutely ruthless with cuts to every other discretionary department,” Perry said.

Senior ranks of Canadian military get makeover ahead of tough federal budget

By The Canadian Press - Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 12:11 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – A major shakeup is in the offing amid the senior ranks of the Canadian military, one that appears to give the new chief of defence staff an open field to implement the Harper government’s long-planned defence reforms.

The country’s deputy top commander, Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, will retire in the coming months, along with the heads of the army and navy.

An internal notice posted late Tuesday at National Defence headquarters announced the changes, which come as the military struggles to deal with pending budget cuts and a massive internal reorganization.

Donaldson will be replaced as vice chief of defence staff by Lt.-Gen. Guy Thibault, a career army officer who recently served in Washington.

Continue…

The F-35: The Conservatives were ‘dead right’

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM - 0 Comments

You might have thought that the auditor general’s report and the KPMG audit amounted to a repudiation of the Harper government’s accounting for the F-35. Gary Goodyear would like to assure you otherwise.

“I can tell you the F-35 is another file – now we see KPMG come out with a report that couldn’t be more plain and simple – that Conservatives were dead right and that those planes would cost $9 billion and that the service contract for 20 years would be $16 billion.”

Setting aside everything the Conservatives said about the F-35 beyond the cost estimate, Mr. Goodyear seems to have chosen a particular set of terms on which to define the government’s correctness.

Granted, this is all a bit confusing, but let’s go over this one more time. The stated acquisition cost does, indeed, remain at $9 billion: that’s the budget the government says it will adhere to in purchasing new fighter jets. But $16 billion was once thought to be the total cost for acquisition and maintenance—in March 2011, the government tabled an estimate of $14.7 billion. The KPMG audit, meanwhile, identified $15.2 billion in “sustainment” costs, in addition to that $9 billion for acquisition.

But the “life-cycle” cost estimate was a particular concern of the auditor general and here, so far as the math is concerned, is the real trouble.

Treasury Board policies require consideration of all relevant costs over the useful life of equipment, not just the initial acquisition or basic contract cost. Careful planning and full costing are needed to ensure that all of the elements required to provide the needed capability come together in a timely and predictable way and that adequate funds are available to support the equipment over the long term. We examined whether National Defence conducted full life-cycle costing related to its Next Generation Fighter Capability project and whether cost estimates were complete, supported, and validated, using the best information available at the time. Estimating future full life-cycle costs for military equipment, especially the F-35, is challenging…

We have a number of observations regarding the life-cycle costing for the F-35. First, costs have not been fully presented in relation to the life of the aircraft. The estimated life expectancy of the F-35 is about 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. National Defence plans to operate the fleet for at least that long. It is able to estimate costs over 36 years. We recognize that long-term estimates are highly sensitive to assumptions about future costs as well as to currency exchange rates. However, in presenting costs to government decision makers and to Parliament, National Defence estimated life-cycle costs over 20 years. This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft’s estimated life expectancy. The JSF Program Office provided National Defence with projected sustainment costs over 36 years…

We also have significant concerns about the completeness of cost information provided to parliamentarians. In March 2011, National Defence responded publicly to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. This response did not include estimated operating, personnel, or ongoing training costs (Exhibit 2.6). Also, we observed that National Defence told parliamentarians that cost data provided by US authorities had been validated by US experts and partner countries, which was not accurate at the time. At the time of its response, National Defence knew the costs were likely to increase but did not so inform parliamentarians.

As Andrew Coyne has pointed out, National Defence agreed with the auditor general in 2010, on a separate file, that life-cycle costing was appropriate.

As noted above, in responding to the parliamentary budget officer, the government tabled an estimate of $14.7 billion over 20 years for capital, acquisition and sustainment costs.

According to the auditor general, National Defence had an internal estimate in June 2010 that covered capital, acquisition, maintenance, personnel and operating costs over 20 years. That estimate came to $25.1 billion. (Andrew has noted that a $25 billion estimate was briefly, and fleetingly, acknowledged in June 2010, only to disappear from the debate soon thereafter.)

According to KPMG, an estimate that covers capital, acquisition, maintenance, personnel, operating and development costs comes to $45.8 billion over 42 years.

So we have three sets of numbers: $15 to $16 billion over 20 years (the publicly debated cost), $25.1 billion over 20 years (National Defence’s internal estimate) and $45.8 billion over 42 years (the KPMG estimate).

But as Andrew has argued, it is difficult to compare the KPMG estimate to the previously acknowledged estimate because the KPMG audit includes money and time for development. If you remove the development figures from the KPMG audit, you get an estimate of $45.2 billion over 30 years.

For the sake of comparison, it is probably most accurate to say that the stated cost has gone from $15 to $16 billion over 20 years to $45.2 billion over 30 years. (Peter MacKay’s office has waded into this debate and Colin Horgan has parsed it here.)

Mythbusting the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, December 15, 2012 at 12:12 PM - 0 Comments

A note posted to Facebook by Chris Alexander, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence. (It seems to have gone out from the PMO as an internal Conservative memo on Thursday evening.)

Replacing Canada’s CF-18s – Just the Facts

Media have incorrectly reported on some aspects of the replacement of Canada’s CF-18s. Here are the facts:

Myth 1: Costs have risen from $9 billion to $45 billion.

Fact 1: Our government has set a $9 billion budget for the purchase of new fighter aircraft. This amount is for the purchase of new aircraft and will not change. The remaining costs are the long-term costs associated with owning and flying these planes, such as maintenance, fuel and salaries. These costs are now presented over 42 years, as compared to 20 years previously. It goes without saying that the dollar figure for operating and sustainment costs for more years will be proportionately higher.

Myth 2: The Auditor General’s report increased the costs from $16 billion to $25 billion

Fact 2: The Auditor General recommended that operating costs be included in the total lifecycle cost estimates, resulting in the apparent “increase”. This is not new money as DND currently spends this money for our CF-18 fleet. These costs are currently being incurred by our fleet of CF-18s and will be incurred by whichever aircraft is chosen to replace the current fleet.

Myth 3: The review of options is a competition

Fact 3: We have a seven point plan that has reset the process to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s. As part of that plan, we have released the rules that will guide the review of alternative fighter aircraft. No decision on a replacement will be made until that work is complete.

Myth 4: Costs are rising, so $9 billion will not be enough to pay for these aircraft.

Fact 4: We have identified $9 billion for the purchase of replacement aircraft. We will not exceed that amount.

Myth 5: Canada is leaving the Joint Strike Fighter development program.

Fact 5: Canada will not end Canadian industrial access to F-35 contracts before the Seven Point Plan is complete and a decision on the replacement of Canada’s CF-18s has been made.

Myth 6: The government did not follow the rules when it released costs over 20 years.

Fact 6: Previously lifecycle costing was done over 20 years, consistent with long-held practices for this type of acquisition. The Auditor General recommended extending that time frame to cover the complete costs over the full life cycle; we complied by adopting the aircraft’s entire program life of 42 years.

Myth 7: The options analysis will find that the F-35 is the only viable option because it is the only plane that meets the Statement of Requirements.

Fact: 7: The original mandatory requirements for this purchase (known as the Statement of Requirements) have been set-aside. Once the options analysis is complete, a determination will be made as to whether a new statement is necessary.

Myth 8: Canadian companies have only received benefits equal to 1% of the total cost of the contract.

Fact 8: Over 70 Canadian companies have won nearly $450 million in contracts already. We believe our world leading aerospace industry will be able to continue to compete for and win contracts in the global marketplace.

Myth 1 seems to depend on the meaning of the word “risen”—the stated cost of the procurement has increased from $9 billion (for acquiring the planes) and a total of $16 billion (for acquisition, operation and sustainment) to $45.8 billion (for development, acquisition, operation and sustainment), owing to an acknowledgement and calculation of a full life-cycle costing. The timeline of 42 years is problematic though. For the sake of comparing the previous estimate for acquisition, operations and maintenance to the current estimate for acquisition, operations and maintenance, the price has gone from $16-billion over 20 years to $45.2 billion over 30 years.

As for Myth 6, the auditor general’s report in April states that “Treasury Board policies require consideration of all relevant costs over the useful life of equipment, not just the initial acquisition or basic contract cost.” And, as Andrew Coyne, has pointed out, National Defence agreed with the auditor general in 2010 that life-cycle costing was appropriate. Of the life-cycle costing for the F-35, the auditor general found in April that “costs have not been fully presented in relation to the life of the aircraft. The estimated life expectancy of the F-35 is about 8,000 flying hours, or about 36 years based on predicted usage. National Defence plans to operate the fleet for at least that long. It is able to estimate costs over 36 years. We recognize that long-term estimates are highly sensitive to assumptions about future costs as well as to currency exchange rates. However, in presenting costs to government decision makers and to Parliament, National Defence estimated life-cycle costs over 20 years. This practice understates operating, personnel, and sustainment costs, as well as some capital costs, because the time period is shorter than the aircraft’s estimated life expectancy. The JSF Program Office provided National Defence with projected sustainment costs over 36 years.”

In the defence of Myth 8, 450 million is one percent of 45 billion. There is the potential for more contracts for Canadian companies, but as Canadian Press reported this week, there are doubts about how much Canadian companies will get.

The reset button

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM - 0 Comments

John Geddes observes Peter MacKay’s no good, very bad day.

He might have made it easier to hear his answers without wincing had he just admitted to past mistakes. Failing that mature, obvious response, he might have clung to a fragment of dignity by resolving at least not to drag Canadian men and women in uniform into it.

But no. His couldn’t restrain himself. He couldn’t resist bringing up his concern for the troops when pointedly asked if he had any regrets about his past harsh words toward critics who raised what turned out to be entirely valid concerns about the F-35 program.

Andrew Coyne fumes at the latest attempt to present the numbers more charitably.

The new line, as expressed in government documents and repeated by the Defence minister, Peter MacKay, is that the planes will cost $45.8-billion “over 42 years.” Not 20 years, or 30 years, but 42 years. And then the spin: it was a billion dollars a year before, it’s pretty much a billion dollars a years now. So you see? Nothing’s changed. Except it isn’t 42 years. Not in any comparable sense. The 20 years used in previous cost estimates was the (supposed) service life of the planes: that is, how long they’re expected to be in use, after delivery. KMPG’s report, as I said, assumed a service life of 30 years. So to compare apples to apples, you would have to say the planes are now projected to cost $45-billion over 30 years.

How does the government get 42 years? By adding in 12 years for “development and acquisition,” from the decision to acquire the planes in 2010 to the delivery of the last plane in 2022. No previous estimate included development costs. And indeed they add next to nothing to the total: just $565-million. But by tacking on another 12 years, they allow the government to spread the cost over a much longer time frame, and make the annual cost of the planes seem much lower than it is.

More from the Canadian Press, Postmedia, Global and CBC. And Dale Smith reviews the evening chat shows, including Chris Alexander’s latest effort.

Meanwhile, here are the exchanges between Thomas Mulcair, Bob Rae and the Prime Minister during QP this afternoon. Continue…

The F-35: The way we were

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM - 0 Comments

Ahead of the release of the KPMG audit, here is the transcript of the September 15, 2010 meeting of the national defence committee, at which Peter MacKay, Rona Ambrose, Tony Clement, assistant deputy minister Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister Tom Ring and Lieutenant-General J.P.A. Deschamps appeared to discuss the F-35. Two months earlier, the Harper government had announced it was “acquiring the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter F-35 aircraft.”

Mr. MacKay was enthusiastic in his opening statement to the committee.

Our commitment, colleagues, to procure the F-35 is part of the overall strategy to give the Canadian Forces the tools they need in order to deliver security to Canadians…

What was the PM talking about?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 10, 2012 at 8:28 PM - 0 Comments

After his exchange with Bob Rae this afternoon, Stephen Harper had this exchange with Thomas Mulcair (who made a rare foray beyond the leaders’ questions).

Thomas Mulcair: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps repeating that no money has been spent on acquisition, but of course, several hundred million dollars has been spent on the F-35 fiasco. It is as if it was not real money because the product does not exist yet. The reason that it is such a fiasco is because they never defined Canada’s needs, they never went to public tender, so there is a basic question of public management involved. Are they going to go to public tender and give it to the lowest conforming bidder, yes or no?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, as I have said repeatedly, the government is following a seven-step process to ensure that Canada will have new fighter aircraft when the air force will need those aircraft. In the meantime, for some years, in fact even under the preceding government, Canada has been involved in the development of new fighter aircraft. Canadian companies, based actually in his city, have hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts for that work, and the government has no intention of ripping up those contracts. If he does, he can go explain that to the workers in Montreal.

What did Mr. Harper mean by “ripping up those contracts?” As a result of Canada’s participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program, Canadian companies were able to bid on and acquire contracts related to the F-35. Was Mr. Harper suggesting those contracts would be declared null and void if Canada pulled out of the program and decided not to buy the F-35? Was the Prime Minister indicated some kind of commitment to the F-35?

I asked the Prime Minister’s Office for an explanation: What did the Prime Minister mean when he referred to “ripping up those contracts?” Here was the response. Continue…

The Commons: Back to the future of the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 10, 2012 at 5:49 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. “Will the Minister of National Defence finally admit that the jig is up,” Matthew Kellway asked, “admit he was wrong and hold an open competition?”

So the latest in jet fighter technology was damned with the language of Elizabethan times. Alas, the Defence Minister did not stand here to proclaim himself besmirched. Instead, Rona Ambrose stood to impart the talking points.

“Mr. Speaker, as you know, the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat has been set up to ensure transparency and due diligence is done before the decision is made to replace our CF-18s,” she explained. “We are committed to completing its seven-point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive and transparent approach to replacing our aging CF-18 aircraft.”

For good measure, Ms. Ambrose added a pre-emptive explanation for the decidedly larger price tag that is still to be released publicly. “When including more years in operations and maintenance cost estimates,” she said, “it goes without saying that the dollar figure will be proportionately higher.”

That such stuff went without saying seems largely to be problem here.

Of what was said, there were now a few rounds of reading into the official record the pronouncements of yesteryear. Continue…

Chris Alexander has the worst job in Ottawa

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, December 10, 2012 at 12:59 PM - 0 Comments

For whatever reason, Chris Alexander, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence, has been assigned the task of going on television to face questions about the F-35 on behalf of the government. This did not go very well for Mr. Alexander in August. And this did not go terribly well for Mr. Alexander on Friday. But he seemed to do a bit better on CTV’s Question Period on Sunday. At the very least, he seemed to concede some government responsibility for the pre-April 2012 impression that a decision had been made to purchase the F-35.

There were various statements in the past that amounted to commitments intentions. The situation has changed. Cost outlook has changed. The auditor general came out with a report that we had to take very seriously, earlier this year. And we accepted his recommendation. And we put in place a seven-point plan to get us to the point where a decision can be made, not just with regard to one option, but with regard to all the options, on the basis of verified costs.

The latest on the F-35

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM - 0 Comments

Reuters, the Canadian Press, Star, Globe and CTV report that a four-person panel will review the options for a new jet fighter and John Ivison says the price tag for the F-35 will be $45.8 billion, but John Geddes notes that a panel review is not the same as an open competition.

Among those being identified as members of the four-person panel is Philippe Lagasse, the University of Ottawa professor. Lagasse wrote for Macleans.ca about the auditor general’s report when it was released in April. He wrote again about the F-35 for us in May. He wrote about defence procurement for the Ottawa Citizen this week.

What’s going on with the F-35?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM - 0 Comments

Postmedia now reports that a final decision will be made this morning, but there seems general agreement among everyone’s anonymous sources about what that decision will be.

Postmedia.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the Harper Conservatives have decided to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

CBC.

The Conservative government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada’s CF-18 fighter jets, but it now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

The Star.

The federal government is going back to the drawing board in its search for a new fighter jet as it prepares to release a dramatically higher cost estimate to purchase and operate the F-35 … A source said that the F-35 is not out of the running and will be a contender as the government considers alternatives.

Global.

It seems the government’s plagued plan to buy F-35 fighter jets for the military is dead in the water now that the cost is expected to reach close to $50 billion. Global News has learned that an independent audit, commissioned by the Conservatives, came up with cost estimates so high the government decided to begin considering other options for replacing its aging fleet of CF-18s.

Globe.

The Harper government is going shopping for alternatives to the controversial F-35 Lightning fighter jet in the most significant demonstration yet that it is prepared to walk away from its first choice for a new warplane … To demonstrate that they are restarting the procurement process from scratch, Canadian officials will collect information from other plane manufacturers, including U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the Super-Hornet, and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon. They may also contact Sweden’s Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, and France’s Dassault, maker of the Rafale.

Navy struggles to explain deleted, but now recovered intelligence presentations

By The Canadian Press - Sunday, December 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – Electronic records detailing the planned overhaul of Canadian naval intelligence — created when admitted Russian spy Jeffrey Delisle was at the height of his treachery — were deleted from a National Defence data base.

Two PowerPoint slide presentations, aimed at explaining the overhaul to intelligence analysts on both the east and west coasts, were reported destroyed when copies were requested earlier this year by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

Military officials described the deletions as a clerical error.

Continue…

Gen. Tom Lawson formally takes over as chief of the defence staff

By The Canadian Press - Monday, October 29, 2012 at 10:36 AM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – The military changed the guard at the top today.

Gen. Tom Lawson was officially appointed as chief of the defence staff, taking over the country’s highest military post.

Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Gov. Gen. David Johnston took part in the ceremony at the Canadian War Museum.

Lawson replaced Gen. Walt Natynczyk who led the military for over four years through the latter half of the Afghan war.

Johnston and Defence Minister Peter MacKay heaped praise on the departing Natynczyk.

The Governor General underlined the importance of the post.

“Just as the principle of duty with honour acts as the centre of gravity for the military profession in Canada, so, too is the chief of defence staff the centre of gravity for the men and women who comprise the Canadian Forces,” Johnston said.

Natynczyk described it as the “best job in the world.”

MacKay said the military will be in good hands with Lawson.

The new top commander said he was “very fortunate” to follow Natynczyk, who he called a friend and mentor.

Lawson is a one-time fighter pilot who has commanded the country’s largest air base and held a number of senior staff positions, but never a field command.

He’s been an articulate defender of the contentious F-35 stealth fighter purchase.

But Lawson arrives as the military faces a post-war cash crunch that could see its budget shrink by as much as $2.5 billion a year by 2014.

As a reflection of that, the change of command ceremony was subdued compared with the 2008 send-off for retired general Rick Hillier, who rode a tank into retirement.

The event for Lawson took place under a solid overcast with the threat of an approaching storm, but included an honour guard and a 21-gun salute for the Governor General.

Natynczyk said the military will always face budget challenges, but urged the government to continue to invest in defence.

Reflecting on his time as chief of staff, Natynczyk said Canadian troops made a difference in Afghanistan and stood their ground in Kandahar.

The military is better for its combat experience, including the mission over Libya, he said.

Lt.-Gen. Thomas Lawson to be installed today as Canada’s new defence chief

By The Canadian Press - Monday, October 29, 2012 at 5:14 AM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – Canada’s military will formally get a new boss today.

Lt.-Gen. Thomas Lawson will be installed as Chief of Defence Staff, replacing the outgoing General Walt Natynczyk.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be among the dignitaries speaking at today’s change of command ceremony.

Lawson is a former fighter pilot with more than 30 years in the air force and a strong proponent of buying the controversial F-35 stealth jets.

He was named as the new top soldier in August by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

The government considers Lawson a good communicator.

In 2010, he went on a cross-country public relations tour to explain why the military needs the F-35s.

The changing of the guard comes as the Canadian Forces deals with budget cuts coupled with plans to buy new, expensive equipment, including ships for the navy.

Is the Harper government going to consider alternatives to the F-35?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 9:57 AM - 0 Comments

The Canadian Press talked to the commander of the Air Force and came away with the understanding that other options have yet to be considered. National Defence promptly attempts to clarify.

But in a statement released late Monday, the air force said “work continues on the evaluation of options” mandated by the government and that “information shared with a reporter was incorrect.” It insisted work is progressing, without addressing the central question of whether other contenders such as the Super Hornet or the Eurofighter were up for consideration. “The options analysis is a full evaluation of choices, not simply a refresh of the work that was done before,” said the statement. “This detailed evaluation will provide the best available information about the range of choices that could do the job required.”

Yet, when Blondin was asked twice during the interview whether other aircraft had been considered, he replied: “No.” Industry sources say competing contractors have not been asked to provide information.

DND fires three civilian execs, including official in charge of pension clawback

By The Canadian Press - Monday, October 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – Three mid-level civilian executives at National Defence were inexplicably fired earlier this month, including a director who’s been at the centre of a class-action lawsuit that could cost the federal treasury up to $600 million.

Andre Bouchard, Gerry Mahon and Randy Helgason were let go Oct. 3 in what defence sources say was “an attempt to change the direction of each organization.”

The dismissals came out of the blue, according to defence insiders.

In the case of Bouchard, president of the Defence Department’s insurance program, it came at a critical juncture as the federal government negotiates its way through a multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuit.

Mahon headed CANEX, the chain of military base retail stores, and Helgason was in charge of personnel support programs.

Their departures were announced internally, but have not been explained, and in each case deputies have been appointed as acting replacements.

Canadian troops serving with allies in Afghanistan cleared for combat

By The Canadian Press - Sunday, October 14, 2012 at 4:05 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – National Defence successfully pushed the Harper government last year to ease the prohibition on Canadian troops from setting foot in Kandahar and participating in combat operations by establishing an exemption for those serving with allies, internal documents reveal.

It is a decision that violates both the spirit and the letter of the Parliament motion that led to the country’s exit from the Afghan war, the opposition charged.

Less than a half dozen Canadians, most of them with the air force, continue to serve in the volatile region that has been the epicentre of the Taliban insurgency.

The much-heralded end to Canada’s five-year guerrilla war in southern Afghanistan produced the iron-clad policy that barred soldiers from taking part in combat operations and being anywhere near war-torn Kandahar province after Dec. 31, 2011.

The date was established in the Parliament motion of 2008.

Even though Canada didn’t participate, the previous Liberal government quietly allowed Canadian officers, including the country’s soon-to-be retiring top soldier Gen. Walt Natynczyk, to serve on secondment in the U.S.-led Iraq war.

In contrast, the original Conservative government dictate over Kandahar was much stricter, perhaps as a reflection the politically radioactive nature of the issue.

The Privy Council Office was asked in the spring of 2011 to approve an exemption for soldiers “working in exchange positions with allied nations,” said a recently released briefing note prepared for the head of the army on March 22, 2011.

The note was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

The measure was supported by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

A spokeswoman for National Defence says the dispensation was granted.

Canadian Forces “members serving as fully integrated members of foreign forces in exchange positions are permitted to be in Kandahar province and to serve in combat roles, as their host units direct them,” Lauri Sullivan said in an email.

It took the department several days to answer queries from The Canadian Press about the politically sensitive subject.

Since the exemption was granted, at least four Canadians have served in volatile province, two of them with the Royal Australian Air Force, one with the Royal Air Force and one with the U.S. Army.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said it shouldn’t be permitted and the fact the soldiers and air crew are on a secondment doesn’t make any difference.

“I believe it’s contrary to the Parliamentary motion,” Harris said. “It is a decision of this country that they’re not going to participate, and their participation in the combat mission in Afghanistan is ended. That means no Canadian troops.”

As the war was winding down and prior to the training mission in Kabul, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was quoted as saying that only a few soldiers would be left in Afghanistan to guard the embassy.

Harris said “people accepted that word at the time” and were let down with the training mission, and now see the exemption.

“This belies whether the prime minister and the government is prepared to stand behind their word,” he said.

The military says officers involved in the exchange program gain valuable field experience and usually it is the host nation that extends the invitation.

Each case is evaluated individually by National Defence headquarters staff “to ensure the mission is in keeping with Canadian values, directions and policies,” said Sullivan’s email note.

The final decision rests the vice chief of defence staff who will sign off on the deployment.

Harris said the continuing combat mission in Afghanistan is clearly not in keeping with Canadian values, directions and policies.

The internal documents show, even before Canadians combat soldiers began boarding transport flights for home in July, military planners were wrestling with several thorny requests, including one of an unidentified major who deployed into Kandahar for 12 months with an American battlefield surveillance brigade.

The unit, with the Canadian officer in tow, eventually took up position along the border with Pakistan and stayed there until July 2012.

A concurrent but separate case involved two non-commissioned soldiers who were slated to deploy with the U.S. 1st Cavalry Division to eastern Afghanistan.

Those troops never visited Kandahar.

At the time, the vice chief of defence staff, Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, signed off on the deployments, pending approval of the new policy, but reserved the right to keep the soldiers back or call them home early if the government didn’t agree to the exemption.

Harper government goes back to negotiating table over Sea King replacements

By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press - Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM - 0 Comments

OTTAWA – The Harper government is once again re-negotiating the contract to replace the air force’s outdated Sea King helicopters, The Canadian Press has learned.

Senior officials at Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., maker of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter, recently told financial analysts the company is bargaining with Public Works to “reach agreement on an alternative contractual solution” for the troubled program, already five years behind schedule.

“I don’t want to sort of negotiate in public about what they want, but what they want is, certainly, sounds perfectly reasonable, right?” Michael Maurer, president of Sikorsky said during a question-and-answer session Sept. 27.

“They want their aircraft the way they ordered them. The issue is that this is a development program, and it really wasn’t structured as a development contract. So we’re both trying to navigate that and they have to follow their procurement rules and regulations.”

Maurer also said that not meeting a commitment to hand over test helicopters would be good for the aircraft-maker’s bottom line in the short-term.

“If we do not deliver the five (Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program) aircraft this year, then Sikorsky will of course realize operating profit growth above our guidance range,” he said.

“It is important to note that excluding (Canadian Maritime Helicopter Program) deliveries, we will demonstrate our ability to get to a 14 per cent return on sales in 2012, two years ahead of the original time line for this goal, and this really demonstrates strong operational performance being achieved across all of our business units and long-term potential for Sikorsky to be a mid-teens return business.”

The comment drew a sharp rebuke from the Opposition defence critic.

“It’s not the Canadian taxpayer’s job to ensure the best bottom line possible for Sikorsky and its owners,” said the NDP’s Jack Harris.

A Sikorsky spokesman did not immediately respond when asked for comment.

The $5.7-billion contract to buy 28 helicopters was signed by the Liberal government of Paul Martin in 2004, a milestone event in the two-decade fight to find a replacement for the CH-124 Sea Kings, after former prime minister Jean Chretien cancelled the first deal in 1993.

Sikorsky was required to deliver new state-of-the-art aircraft within four years, but the Harper government was forced to extend the contract in 2008 and toss in an extra $117 million after the program bogged down.

In constructing the Cyclones, the U.S. aircraft giant took a civilian helicopter design — the S-92 — hardening it with improvements and electronics for military use.

Canada’s auditor general slammed National Defence over the Cyclone purchase two years ago, saying the department underestimated the complexity of developing the helicopter and wrongly defined it as being an “off-the-shelf” purchase.

The development programs continue today, according to a transcript of Maurer’s remarks.

“The biggest remaining development challenge is mission system software, verification and validation,” he said during the event, held at the Pratt and Whitney plant in Mirabel, Que., outside Montreal.

He estimated the software won’t be ready until the end of the year.

As part of the 2008 contract extension, the company promised to deliver interim helicopters for training at the Canadian Forces facility in Shearwater, N.S., by November 2010.

It missed that deadline and last June the aircraft-maker failed to meet its primary goal of handing over a “fully mission capable” Cyclone, triggering contract penalties that could run as high as $88 million, cash that would be recovered through deductions to in-service maintenance support.

A spokeswoman for Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose acknowledged bargaining is underway, but provided few details on the scope of the re-negotiation or the potential implications on the treasury, or the military.

“When we sign a contract with a supplier, we expect their obligations under the contract to be met,” Michelle Bakos said in a statement.

“We have already applied liquidated damages under the contract; and significant additional charges have begun to accrue against the company for failure to deliver fully compliant Maritime Helicopters.”

Harris said he’s worried the re-negotiation was triggered by the escalating penalties and the government may be prepared to let the company off the hook.

“I think it’s fair for the Canadian government to hold them to the original contract,” he said.

Sikorsky officials at the Montreal event said the Canadian air force has four aircraft, being used to train maintenance technicians. Pilot training was expected to begin this fall.

More importantly, the company says seven helicopters are on the assembly line in Florida and production has started on 23 of the 28 contracted aircraft, making it extremely unlikely the Harper government would cancel the program.

“The delivery profile for the Canadian Maritime Helicopter program is uncertain,” officials said.

The Sea Kings will celebrate 50 years in service next year and the troubled Cyclone program has been a source of frustration for the Conservatives, evident in June when Defence Minister Peter MacKay referred to it as “the worst procurement in the history of Canada.”

There has been bad blood between the government and the company, with defence officials blatantly warning MacKay in late 2010 that they were worried Sikorsky might cut corners to meet deadlines.

About those “next generation” tanks

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 1:29 PM - 0 Comments

David Pugliese quibbles with the Defence Minister’s announcement of new “next generation” tanks.

It seems that MacKay’s public relations machine was in full swing and “as usual they got way ahead of themselves in hyping this,” explained one individual associated with the file. “Just like all those re-announcements the minister made this summer,” said another. So exactly what is this “next generation tank?”

That is the name that is being used by the CF and MacKay’s office for those used Leopard 2 A4s that Canada ordered years ago. MacKay will announce that ten tanks have been repaired and overhauled and delivered so far. The tanks are going to be used for training and Defence Watch has been told there is nothing new or special that was installed on board. The transmission was worked on and upgraded a little but there are no new electro-optics or computers. These tanks are not even the equivalent of the more modern Leopard 2s outfitted for the Afghanistan war (since after all they are to be used for training in Canada).

Enter the Avro?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Maj0r-General Lewis MacKenzie says a new Avro Arrow should be considered, but figures the fix is in for the F-35.

Tom Clark: Do you think the fix is in for the F-35?

General Lewis MacKenzie: I do. I do. I think…I worked in a bureaucracy for a while; only one year here in Ottawa but I know how these things work and when a submission or a request comes in, it goes down to the sharp end, sharp end comments and then it comes back up and you get your answer. This feasibility study was in the hands of the PMO, the Minister of National Defence; General Lawson, congratulations now the CDS when he was deputy commander of NORAD. I kept getting the same feedback. It was like talking points coming back. I’d like somebody outside the military family and those that support the military family from within the government to at least pass judgement on it and give us an opinion.

More from the Globe, Canadian Press and Global.

Chris Alexander is confused

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM - 0 Comments

Adrian Wyld/CP Photo

Participating in a panel on Power & Politics yesterday, Chris Alexander offered the following version of recent history on the F-35.

“There was a misunderstanding, to some extent, in the Canadian public opinion, to some extent perpetrated by the opposition who claimed that a decision had been made, contracts had been signed, obligations had been undertaken and that is not the case.”

This is a rather remarkable assertion.

Mr. Alexander is relatively new here—he was just elected last May—so perhaps he was unaware of what the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister were saying about the F-35 procurement through 2010 and early 2011. And perhaps he was so distracted with the adjustment to public office that he missed what Julian Fantino was saying last November. But here are a bunch of quotes to compare and contrast with Mr. Alexander’s understanding of the “misunderstanding” that concerned the F-35. Continue…

The Russians aren’t coming

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 9:57 AM - 0 Comments

Despite what you might have heard, David Pugliese reports that the Defence department isn’t worried about a Russian military threat in the Arctic.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting Canada’s security and exercising its sovereignty in the North, including in Canada’s Arctic internal waters. Defence issues do not drive Arctic affairs and Canada does not see a military threat in the Arctic, including from Russia.

 From a defence perspective, relations with Russia and our other Northern neighbours remain positive and are marked by cooperation in several areas given shared challenges associated with operating in the unique Arctic environment and the mutual benefit of exchanging lessons learned and best practices.

See previously: The Russians are mocking, ‘A good working relationship’ and ‘Hook, line and sinker’.

The F-35 on trial

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, August 21, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

The NDP will convene two public roundtables this morning on the Hill to hear what Winslow Wheeler, Philippe Lagasse, Alan Williams and Scott Taylor have to say about the F-35. Official parliamentary hearings on the matter were closed in May.

It remains unclear when the Conservatives will be providing an update on the projected cost of the F-35. When the auditor general releases his report in April, the Harper government promised to provide an update “within a maximum of 60 days from receipt of annual costing forecasts from the Joint Strike Fighter program office.” In May, Defence officials met with JSF officials in the Washington, but in June, the Harper government decided that an update would have to wait until the fall because National Defence’s estimates needed to independently validated. But as of two weeks ago, the Harper government was still looking for an auditor and the reissued tender for that job won’t close until the end of August.