Let's talk about promises.

It's been a few days since we last discussed the possibility of Canada joining ReArm Europe, which I guess is now being referred to as Readiness 2030 as well.

There's been a lot of open speculation about what role we are expected to play, as well as the terms that cone with it. I know many people have been asking me personally about what I expect to see out of this relationship.

Of course I don't want to speculate to much, as I believe it's best to await more details before throwing out anything concrete. The truth is, we don't have really anything to go off.

We know we want the 35% foreign exemption. We also know we want priority access to EU equipment deliveries, as well as to be added to Europe's manufacturing roster. This was all previously reported by the Globe and Mail, which while it does give us some insight into our initial wants it's just as likely the end result will be far different.

First, let's ask ourselves what the EU views our relationship to be. We actually have good insight into this specifically because we are directly referenced in the initial white paper published on March 19th.

To quote directly:

“Our cooperation with Canada has intensified and should be further enhanced, also to strengthen transatlantic security. The bilateral Security and Defence dialogue as well as the upcoming Security and Defence partnership provide the basis for enhanced security and defence cooperation, including on respective initiatives to boost defence industry production.”

This isn't exactly much to go off of, but it shows that there is a desire to expand upon the current relationship, specifically when it does come to production. Canada is one of several countries, including Norway and the UK that are mentioned in the white paper directly.

As of right now several of these countries are part of a 35% clause to source goods from outside the EU. This provides some flexibility in acquisition while ensuring a majority of the funds stay within EU borders. It is highly likely, at the least that we end up in this group.

Yet it's very clear that we want more, to be more involved and be an active player on the manufacturing side. We want to make things here, not just for ourselves but to support our allies.

Those of you who have dived into my writing have likely read my piece on Production, albeit a bit outdated, I lay out a very similar role as the current Liberal government seems to be angling to allies as a safe supply point.

This isn't a unique concept. We played the role several times throughout the Second World War and Cold War as somewhere away from the conflict zone that could keep production up even if our allies lost those capabilities.

I've argued that we could play that role again, with an abundance of natural and critical resources, a highly skilled population, and a stable manufacturing base that has room to scale up if demand requires.

Of course I've argued for this on a much smaller scale than many discuss but the concept the same, more or less, no matter what you're producing at the end of the day.

Of course that isn't the only dangling promise that has been levied our way the last few days. The Globe and Mail was the first to report that Lockheed was in active discussions about adding more Canadian suppliers to the F-35 supply chain if we go through with the whole order.

There weren't any details to really give, other than a vague promise but the idea is now out there. We now have Lockheed actively dangling more investment so long as we stick to the 88 order.

This is, of course, the natural outcome anyways. It is highly unlikely that the air force would approve of any sort of cut to numbers, and the desire to run a second fleet is minimal at best.

There are a few I've talked to who like it, but they've a vast minority and would be wanting a look at a future fighter program like GCAP or FCAS over purchasing something like Rafale or Gripen.

Maybe there's room for that. Perhaps I should write about it another time? You tell me! The point I'm trying to make is that the current situation is seemingly putting us in a situation to come out on top well.

Yet at the same time, I worry that mentality might be something that could end up working against us, especially at a time when we find ourselves vulnerable and mentally looking for reassurances.

I welcome these talks greatly, I truly do. Anyone who knows me knows I'm nothing if not an optimist, someone who tried to be overly positive and hopeful. I do think we have a role to play here. I do think this will work out.

However we need to establish, above all, what we can expect out of this and what we shouldn't. We need to recognize that even allies have a reason to give us some promises, even if unlikely.

This isn't speaking against these negotiations, nor am I implying that big things are being thrown. I truly do not know that side of the negotiations and what the expectation is.

Where my concern lies is, in our current state, we might be inclined to buy into our allies hype, and potential dangling of goodies to push us into concepts that might not fir us, or be far more costly/complex than we are led to believe.

Tooshee recently spoke about this in relation to CPSP:

“Every company that can sell us a submarine, like every salesman, will promise us the world till we sign a contract and realize that if we want the world, we need to pay an insane amount of money, and the right answer might be something else,”

This applies to countries as well, and is something we shouldn't forget to think about when discussing these things. Do the Germans really want us to be building tanks? Are they willing to let us manufacture for export, or are we looking at a limited line that dissappear into a barebones maintenance after our order is done?

Do they even want us to be able to do that, or are we just looking at being part of the spares supply? The same applies to any higher end capability, like fighter jets. If we build Gripen, what happens when our order is done? Is the cost and time worth something that might turn into a bust after the order is done?

Do we take these promises and say we'll figure them out later? Are we sure the plans are credible and economically viable? These are things we need to ask ourselves before we discuss these kinds of proposals.

And of course there are ways to mitigate these, no doubt, but we need to fight for them, and stand our ground. We can't go in here accepting what is given, yet we are at a disadvantage, an isolated market that doesn't order enough to keep up a proper defence manufacturing sector.

It also likely ties us to those manufacturers from that point on, less we lose thay capability and economic benefit. That is a very serious choice that we will have to make in these kinds of things.

I'm not saying these are impossible tasks, nor that these aren't being thought of. They better be given thought to! I just want to highlight some of these issues as we go through the next several months of this back and forth discussion.

We need to understand what we have to offer, be prepared to offer more than we do. That requires a whole of government approach, putting our strengths, like our resource sector, location and energy into oir negotiations basket. That also means doing better at developing and getting those products to export.

We can't be seen as coming to Europe for help. We need to be seen as a partner coming to the table.

On a side note, I don't trust Lockheed for shit. More jobs, sure, I'll wait for details, but I think it misses the point that people are trying to raise in concern. It doesn't address anything honestly, just a vague bribe of more jobs to ignore the potential issues.

Gotta do better than that Lockhart!