Commentary, analysis, insight, opinions on political, public policy and social justice issues affecting civil society and the world we live in.
If you enjoyed what you read, or found it illuminating, thought provoking or interesting, please share it with friends and colleague in your social network.
Diversity
Dialogue / Dialogue de la Diversitéis a
conversation series with prominent people who work in the area of human rights
and anti-racism. It is hosted by Fareed Khan.
For this edition we are speaking with Valerie Peay,
Founder and Director of the International Observatory of Human Rights – a media
NGO located in London in the United Kingdom, which focuses on human rights
issues.
Valerie attended the University of Glasgow where
she graduated with an MA in English, Film and Television.
***********
Diversity Dialogue / Dialogue de la Diversité est une
série de conversations avec des personnalités qui travaillent dans le domaine
des droits de la personne et de la lutte contre le racisme animée par Fareed
Khan.
Pour cette édition, nous nous
entretenons avec Valerie Peay, fondatrice et directrice de International Observatory of Human Rights – une ONG médiatique située à Londres au Royaume-Uni, qui
se concentre sur les questions des droits de l'homme.
Valerie a fréquenté l'Université de Glasgow
où elle a obtenu une maîtrise en anglais, cinéma et télévision.
The
process to replace Canada's aging CF-18
Hornet jet fighters is now well into its second decade.The aircraft, which first entered into
service in 1982, are currently programmed to be phased out by the mid-2020s
when the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is supposed to take delivery of replacement aircraft from one of
the aircraft manufacturers currently competing for the lucrative contract with the
Canadian government.
CF-18 Hornet
CF-105 Avro Arrow
Since
it began, the debate surrounding which company should replace Canada’s fighter
jet fleet also raised questions about whether this country has the ability to
design and manufacture a jet fighter suited to Canadian air defence needs, the
way it once did in the 1940s and 50s.The last Canadian designed and manufactured fighter jet was the ill-fated
Avro Arrow which
was abruptly cancelled in 1959 by the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker.
In
2012 a Canadian company proposed an updated version of the legendary Arrow as a
Canadian-made alternative to the purchase of American or European designed fighter
jets.One of the proponents of that proposal
was retired Canadian Armed Forces Maj.Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, who noted that the
Arrow’s basic design and platform still exceeded any current fighter jet, and
that it was perfect for Canada’s needs.The proposal was rejected by the Conservative government of Stephen
Harper.
This
proposal was evidence that Canada does have the knowledge and resources to
design and build a fighter jet to meet its needs, as well as the entrepreneurial
spirit and business acumen required for such a venture. The only thing that seemed to be lacking was political will. If
Canadian politicians and those who advocate a Canadian-made solution to
this nations air defence needs are looking for a template on how
to take on such a venture successfully then it should look no further
than
Sweden.This small nation has been able
to create a robust domestic military aviation industry based on the needs of
the Swedish Air Force (SAF) for a fighter jet.
The Saab conglomerate has been
the supplier of front line fighter jets to the SAF since the late 1940s.Its
success is built on a foundation of
aviation technology, a commitment to innovative research and
development, a
political commitment to the company by all political parties that have
held government in
that country, and a realization that as a small nation with an official
policy of neutrality in the great conflicts of the 20th Century, it
could not depend on
other nations to defend its air space or territory.As a result Saab has been the main supplier of front line fighter jets
for the SAF for decades.
Sweden
is a country with a population of more than 10.1 million people (27% of
Canada's population), a geography that is 4.5% the size of Canada's, and a GDP
that is 32.5% of Canada's (2018 International Monetary Fund figures).Yet
for almost seven decades this small
nation has managed to produce jet fighters to equip its own air force
that matched or exceeded the performance of other top line fighter jets
produced in
the West and by the Russians. These planes were supplied to the SAF in
numbers that were and are two or three times greater than the number of
front line jets
that have equipped the RCAF over the past half century.
The
decision by Diefenbaker's Conservative government to cancel
the Avro Arrow, which was apparently made on the basis of the program's
cost (but some say was a vindictive political move against a Liberal project), was one of the biggest
blunders in industrial policy in Canadian history.That decision resulted in more than 15,000
well-paid and highly educated Canadian workers immediately losing
their jobs with another 25,000 jobs lost in the supply chain, in spin-off
and support industries, and in businesses that depended on the buying power of those
aviation industry workers.In addition,
the cancellation resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of potential future
jobs that would have been created through further innovation and evolution of
the technology developed by Avro.
CF-101 Voodoo
The
replacements for the Arrow -- the Bomarc
missile, CF-101
Voodoo, and the CF-104
Starfighter -- not only did not meet the performance specifications
that the RCAF had for the Arrow, but also ended up costing significantly
more in the long run than if Canada had purchased the Arrow for the RCAF.
Squadron of CF-104 Starfighters
One of the reasons often given by critics as to why Canada can't design and build
jet fighters for the RCAF today is that Canada does not have the technological
capacity or deep enough pockets as a government to finance a fighther aircraft
from design to production to operation.This is despite the fact that Canada's aerospace industry was
ranked third in terms of revenue and fifth in terms of civil aircraft
production in the world in 2018.In
addition, Canada's largest aerospace company -- Bombardier -- has been on the
leading edge of innovative aircraft design when it comes to civil aircraft for
years, despite setbacks in recent years resulting from over extending itself
financially to design and build the C-Series
passenger jet, which was eventually sold to Airbus. Furthermore, Canada's economy was ranked 9th in the world compared to Sweden which was ranked 22nd. Given these realities
it begs the question, if Sweden is able to design and build their own
fighter jets with a much smaller economy, tax base and aerospace sector than
Canada, then what is stopping Canada from doing the same? The simple answer seems to be political vision and will.
Bombardier C-Series 100
The
138 CF-18 Hornets that Canada purchased in 1982 were intended to defend the
second largest geography in the world and meet Canada's NATO commitments.By comparison, the SAF had over 300 front
line jets operational in its arsenal during the same time period to defend a nation with a
tiny fraction of Canada's geography.Either Sweden wasted tax dollar on defence of its air space or Canada didn't
spend enough on defence of its territory.
Now
Canada is looking at buying even fewer
replacement aircraft -- 88 to be precise -- to replace the CF-18s to defend its geography
and meet its NATO obligations.Based on
Canada's NORAD and NATO defence requirements, as well as requirements to defend
Canada's sovereignty from the air over the vastness of the Arctic, a fleet of
only 88 aircraft is totally inadequate, and is a signal that Canadian politicians do not take defence of Canadian sovereignty over its vast territory seriously.In addition, in a controversial decision, Canada has committed to purchasing 25
used F-18 Hornets from Australia in the interim to meet a "capability
gap" resulting from the wear out, crashes and retirements of older CF-18s, which have
resulted in a severely depleted RCAF fleet.
Sweden's
first jet fighter was the single-engine Saab 29 Tunnan -- a single seat fighter similar in design to the Russian MIG 15 and the American F-86 Sabre.More than 660 Tunnan's were built (some
for export) and they served with the SAF from 1950-76.
The
first supersonic fighter deployed by the SAF was the single-engine, Mach 2
capable, Saab
35 Draken interceptor, which was able to operate from public highways and
roads, and could be refueled and rearmed within 10-15 minutes by relatively
untrained conscripts.Canada's Avro
Arrow and the French Mirage
III were aircraft that were comparable.The SAF equipped its squadrons with 474 of these jets which served with
the SAF well into the 1990s.The
replacement for the Draken was the Saab
37 Viggen -- a single-engine, single seat jet capable of Mach 2.1 designed
for air superiority, ground attack and reconnaissance.This jet saw service in the SAF from
1971-2005 with over 329 being produced.
Saab Draken Saab Viggen
The
current front line fighter jet serving with the SAF is the Saab JAS 39
Gripen -- a single-engine, multirole jet fighter comparable in performance to
the Eurofighter
Typhoon, the Dassault
Rafale and the MIG 29.Over 240 Gripens have
been built, and it is one of the planes in the running to replace the RCAF's fighter jet fleet.The Swedish government
has also been working aggressively with Saab to market Gripens to other
European nations as well as to Brazil, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Mexico and
the Philippines.
Saab Gripen
Given
Canada's unique air defence needs and its vast geography, and since Canada
already has a robust and competitive aerospace sector that could design and
build fighter jets to meet RCAF needs if called upon, one has to question why
Canada can't take a page from Sweden and follow their example of creating an
industry, the main purpose of which would be to provide for its domestic air defence needs,
while creating jobs and contributing to Canada's GDP in a significant manner.
Those
who criticize Canadian governments for supporting a domestic aerospace industry
demonstrate their lack of confidence and vision in the capability of the Canadian aerospace sector, and an
unwillingness to take advantage of the innovation and ingenuity resident in
Canada.Critics also fail to realize
or are unwilling to admit that Canada's air defence needs are very different from those of its
allies, and therefore requires a tailor made approach.
Since
there are vast areas of Canada's geography where sovereignty
can only be exercised from the air, there is no excuse for Canada not producing
its own fighter aircraft to equip the RCAF to meet its unique air defence needs,
particularly when it has the talent, ingenuity and technological capability to do
so.Canada
use to do this and the Avro
Arrow was the last time that Canada took an independent approach to air
defence procurement. Had the Arrow gone into service it would have been
able to exceed
the performance of most of the front line jet fighters of its allies and
adversaries
well into the 1970s. In addition, advances in design and technology
would likely have meant that it could have continued to be a superior
jet fighter into the 1980s, 90s, and possibly into the 21st century.The absolute folly
of the Diefenbaker government's decision to cancel the Arrow program is evident
by the fact that the government spent far more in the subsequent decades on
aircraft and missiles for Canada's air defence than the original Arrow program would
have cost. By doing so Diefenbaker seriously damaged the Canadian economy, Canada’s technological
and industrial capacity, and in the process diminished the ability of Canada to defend its sovereignty. The repercussions of that decision are still being felt more than 60 years later.
The
knowledge to design, build and equip RCAF fighter squadrons in numbers that
would cover Canada from east to west to north is present today and would only succeed
if the federal government, supported by all political parties, and Canada's
aerospace sector, came together to make this project a national priority, not
only to meet Canadian defence needs, but also to create well paid, value added,
high tech manufacturing jobs.
Canada
suffered a huge loss in terms of industrial capability, innovation, research
and development, and jobs when the Arrow was cancelled in 1959.The impact of the loss of tens of thousands
of jobs, the money that was taken out of the economy, and the talent, knowledge
and ingenuity that was lost to the US and the UK aerospace sectors when engineers
and designers left Canada, was incalculable.Who knows where Canadian industry (particularly the aerospace sector) would be
today if Canada had proceeded with outfitting the RCAF with the Arrow as
planned?
The evolution of aerospace technology would have seen the Arrow evolve into something that could have gone toe to toe or even surpassed the stealth jets which are the front line fighters of the US, Russia and China. Concepts for a 5th generation Arrow have been floated for the past decade in many social media forums, and concept designs like the illustration below could have become reality if there had been political vision to support the ingenuity of Canadian aerospace designers and engineers, and adopt a build and buy Canadian policy for the RCAF.
However,
an opportunity exists again for Canada to be the master of its own destiny when
it comes to air defence.But only if it
follows the example of Sweden, instead of being subservient to the defence priorities
of the US government and the American military-industrial complex. Committing to designing and building a
Canadian-made fighter jet would be a way to exercise sovereignty in defence
procurement based on Canadian air defence needs.It would unleash innovation that would not
only benefit the defence sector but would have economic spin offs for the
non-defence sector as well. It would also instill a sense of national pride among Canadians, particularly those who know the story of the Arrow. Finally, it
would create tens of thousands of new jobs both within and outside the
aerospace sector that would boost the aviation industry and the high tech
sector in ways that hasn’t happened since the days when the Avro Arrow was the
height of technological achievement.
Canada
shouldn't turn its back on the potential that is possible if this nation does as Sweden
did, and charts its own course for Canada's air defence priorities.It has little to lose and much to gain.
Diversity
Dialogue / Dialogue de la Diversitéis a conversation
series with prominent people who work in the area of human rights and
anti-racism.It is hosted by Fareed Khan,
founder of the anti-racism activist group Canadians
United Against Hate.
For
this edition, the guest is Prof. John
Packer, Director of the Human
Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa, in
addition to being a professor of law at the University of Ottawa Law School.
Prof.
Packer has held academic positions at the University of Essex where he was the
Director its world-renowned Human Rights Centre, and at The Fletcher School of
International Affairs at Tufts University.He has held Fellowships at Cambridge and Harvard Universities and
lectured at universities and professional institutions around the world.
In
addition, Prof. Packer has held positions with a number of international
organizations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the International
Labour Organisation, and for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights where he
investigated serious human rights violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Myanmar.
Prof.
Packer got his bachelor’s degree in politics from the University of Manitoba
and a masters in law from the University of Essex in the UK.
***************
Diversity
Dialogue / Dialogue de la Diversité est une série
de conversations avec des personnalités qui travaillent dans le domaine des
droits de la personne et de la lutte contre le racisme. Elle est animée par Fareed Khan, fondateur du
groupe d'activistes antiracistes Canadiens Unis
Contre la Haine.
Le professeur Packer a occupé des
postes universitaires à l'Université d'Essex, où il était directeur de son
Centre des droits de l'homme de renommée mondiale, et à la Fletcher School of
International Affairs de l'Université Tufts. Il a été boursier dans les
universités de Cambridge et de Harvard et a donné des conférences dans des universités
et des institutions professionnelles du monde entier.
En outre, le professeur Packer a
occupé des postes auprès d'un certain nombre d'organisations internationales,
notamment l'Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe, le
bureau du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, l'Organisation
internationale du travail et le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les
réfugiés. Human Rights, où il a enquêté sur de graves violations des droits
humains en Irak, en Afghanistan et au Myanmar.
Le professeur Packer a obtenu son
baccalauréat en politique de l’Université du Manitoba et une maîtrise en droit
de l’Université d’Essex au Royaume-Uni.
