The Government of Canada last week took the first significant step to correct the long -standing problems related to
Purchases in this country by creating an agency to observe it. This, however, is not a silver bullet, and there is much more work.
The creation of another agency within the framework of an already oversized and possibly ineffective public service, no doubt, will lead to the fact that some are mocking whether this is a serious or responsible decision. Although some skepticism is clear, this is a significant step forward for Canada, and we must give it the opportunity to achieve results.
Problems with defense costs in Canada are so deeply built into the government’s mechanism that correction of their coordinated efforts will bring for several years. This does not mean that Canadians should not expect and ultimately see the measurable progress earlier than later.
With the risk of simplifying the complexity of problems with the outdated system, there are three main participants in inefficiency, which led to this recent decision:
- Diffuse and often competing bodies and responsibilities between disparate government agencies;
- Bulky and Byzantine mechanisms of approval and challenges that contribute to obstruction through delivery;
- Expensive, overly detailed and painfully slow processes of military requirements.
All these obstacles should be attacked with equal energy so that this new agency has even significant potential success.
I am optimistic with optimism that the initial step for creating an independent agency will be of great importance for solving the first of three tasks higher. Even the most enthusiastic and competent leadership will be only limited success without coordinated efforts to solve two other problems.
In addition to the simple correction of new opportunities for the Canadian armed forces (CAF), so that it receives the right equipment, when it needs, the government also seeks to invest in technology, innovation, internal production and stability necessary in the defense sector.
We must strive to take care of our own needs, where it is possible
And
Become leaders among our allies in those sectors where we already have or can create potential, competence and competitive advantage. There are real opportunities here.
Calling it, the investment protection agency is not accidental, and it reflects the intention of the government and the main opportunity for the growth of the Canadian economy in the sector, which has still been underestimated and underestimated.
In addition, the appointment of the Gusman arc as the first executive director, someone from the private sector with experience in banking, is a decision that I welcome. The prospects of an outsider to the traditional technology of the government, we hope, will challenge the status -kVO and bring new and innovative ideas.
Simultaneously with the recent obligations to increase expenses and stimulate the Canadian industry, by the same, there is a noticeable change in the relationship in key financial sectors in Canada.
In particular, I feel a change in the long -standing exclusion of protection and security from lending or investment tools. This is a positive signal that the private sector recognizes the potential opportunity in defense. Regardless of whether this shift in thinking is ideological or simply practical, is intangible if we begin to admit that protective and security companies in Canada are potential winners who deserve our support.
In addition to a shift in relation, there are two important changes in the policy necessary for this possibility to be fully implemented, and they both include protection elements.
The first is connected with the need for that to some extent protect those who protect those who are ready to take on the risk of providing the market opportunities that would traditionally be signed by direct state investments in the past. It is here that the government can easily generate a significant multiplier from private capital with a relatively small rear.
Secondly, we must do more to protect our intellectual property. We must be much more ruthless and less naive in relation to the risks of foreign investment and/or absorptions, even for companies that may not be directly in this sector, but the protection of which meets national interests.
I do not know the guzman, but, in general opinion, he is extremely capable of. I respect his readiness to take such an important responsibility. I am afraid, however, that his competence will only give it to this day. He needs to be ruthless, innovative and persistent if he has hope to achieve the intention of the government. He will also need a government to aggressively fight two other important obstacles to success. This is my point of view on the mission “without failure.” The future of our lifestyle is on the balance sheet.
Mark Norman-Pensionar Vice Admiral, who commanded the Canadian Navy and was the deputy gland of defense. He advises several Canadian defense companies.
