Canada’s new

defence

industrial strategy sent a message that the federal government intends to use some of the $82 billion being set aside to give the economy a shot in the arm, but some in the industry say the policy lacked policy detail, while others said it sets the country on an ambitious path.

“The entire thing is predicated on building up our industrial capacity,” said Naresh Raghubeer, managing partner and co-founder of the Sandstone Group, a lobbying firm with experience in defence procurement. “It’s a nice general document and its implementation will be interesting to watch.”

The 57-page defence strategy lays out a series of goals for the next decade and includes increasing the share of government defence contracts awarded to Canadian companies to 70 per cent, increasing defence exports by 50 per cent and creating 125,000 jobs in the process.

The strategy commits to an 85 per cent increase in government investment in defence-related research and development over the next decade and to principles such as making it easier for Canadian companies to navigate and become accredited for defence procurement.

But the document drew criticism from some as being overly general. For example, it lists 10 areas where Canada will establish “sovereign capabilities,” from aerospace and communication to uncrewed autonomous systems.

Alan Williams, a former government official who now advises companies on defence procurement, said the list risks being overly broad.

“I was hoping to see specifics in terms of what areas our country wants to be best in,” he said.

By laying out goals, such as creating 125,000 jobs or awarding 70 per cent of acquisitions to Canadian companies, without providing clear policies to achieve these objectives, Williams said there is a risk that “the ‘best’ equipment for the military (may) be sacrificed in order to buy Canadian.”

The document was specific about some policies that he challenged. For example, a newly created Defence Investment Agency — which will be established through legislation later — would be responsible for defence contracts of more than $100 million.

“It is hard to understand why a $95-million acquisition should be treated differently from a $105-million acquisition,” said Williams, who added that he believes it will likely add bureaucracy.

He said the federal government should consider publicizing “a long-term Cabinet-approved capital plan” for organizing defence expenditures so that Canadian companies can position themselves to win future contracts.

Others also said the federal government is finally addressing a litany of criticisms it has faced on defence procurement in the past.

Dana O’Born, chief strategy officer at the Council of Canadian Innovators, said she was optimistic that the government is heeding advice that it must take new steps to protect

intellectual property

created through its investments and spending.

The document mentions intellectual property a half-dozen times, she said, whereas the phrase was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the past.

“If we don’t own the ideas coming out of our country, then we just continue to be this branch plant,” she said.

O’Born said t

he government still needs to show it is serious by crafting policies to protect IP and other value chains.

In that sense, most agreed that the document is aspirational in tone in that it lays out principles and goals, but does not always prescribe the exact policy to get there.

“What is good about this document is that finally we have one,” said one defence procurement insider speaking on background. “Great. We are now at the beginning of the starting point, but from here we need to get better.”

  • Opinion: The rupture is here: Why Canada needs an economic security act like Japan’s
  • ‘Sole-source’ clause in new U.S. National Security Strategy runs roughshod over Canadian sovereignty

• Email: gfriedman@postmedia.com