Boeing likewise faces effective exclusion from the competition for a long-term replacement for the CF-18s owing to proposed new rules against procuring military equipment from companies who do “economic harm” to Canada.
...
The cancelling of the Boeing purchase, likewise, while an obvious money-saver — used jets are cheaper — is unprecedented in subordinating the needs of national defence to the prosecution of a private trade dispute.
...
Now the government proposes attaching still another non-military condition to future military purchases, starting with the $19-billion fighter jet contract. The details have yet to be revealed — or, it would seem, written down — but apparently it would involve some sort of
test of every competing bidder’s “overall impact on Canada’s economic interests,” assessing their “economic behaviour” in the years prior to the contract being awarded. “Bidders responsible for harming Canada’s economic interests,” the government warns, will be at a “distinct disadvantage.”
The best word for this, other than petulant, is eccentric. No one knows how any of these terms would be defined, still less how this novel approach would square with Canada’s obligations under international trade law. Which types of “behaviour” would be assessed? What sorts of “harm” would count? The prospect is for still further delays and still higher costs as these highly subjective judgments are worked out, with still greater uncertainty the result.
Is Boeing, a major employer in Manitoba, really doing “harm” to Canada by defending itself against alleged unfair trade practices on the part of Bombardier, a major employer in Quebec?