1956 Defense Production Sharing Agreement

In the event of a Korean emergency, while U.S. electronic production facilities were working close to capacity, heavy purchases of radar and other air-connected electronic devices were made in Canada [page 749] of defense, particularly Pinetree systems. In accordance with bilateral agreements on these facilities, the United States has agreed to purchase „so convenient“ equipment in Canada that will be installed in Canada. The feasibility was defined over a period of time as determining the Canadian technical competency for a particular item, as well as the ability to produce at a reasonable cost and at the required time. A significant portion of anti-radar equipment was purchased in Canada on the basis of these general criteria, setting a production sharing precedent. The precedent for cost-sharing was also created when Pinetree`s costs were spread over one-third of Canada, two-thirds AD. Glenn Nichols: In the DPSA, people actually sign up to do business in the United States. Under the terms of the DPSA, if it is a contract worth more than $100,000, the U.S. purchasing agency will say it will not offer directly, offer via CCC, we want it, and that is how the agreement works. Anything below $100,000, they can do it on their own.

These fundamental principles have been implemented in a large number of measures that adequately reflect the spirit and intent of political statements at the highest level. Canada is particularly concerned about a wide range of defence-related issues, including the Buy American Act, the exchange of programming and standardization information between the military services of the two countries, industrial security, defence materials control, Canadian equipment production agreements to be installed in Canada, and the exchange of technical data from research and development. 1630 I think what I can say in an open forum like this is that Canada has had a special exception to these export authorizations for years and that it is all due to things like the sharing of defence production. We had privileged access. This access is very compromised. The U.S. State Department is currently seeking a more consistent approach with the Organization of American States with respect to gun legislation. A proposal to launch a project can be made by the CDDP to one of DoD`s military departments or to one of DoD`s military departments to CDDP. Each proposal contains a comprehensive and detailed description of the scope of the project and the work to be carried out, as well as the proposed cost-sharing agreement. The projects are jointly selected by the CDDP within the relevant military division of the DoD.

In the interests of coherence, a current defence policy directive will allow each service to exempt elements or programmes of „mutual interest“. While this may lead to a slightly less favourable [page 753] Canada position granted under previous usaf policy, it will increase Canadian opportunities to offer military and marine items. If we are to achieve a clear improvement in the shared position of Canadian production, there must be a liberal interpretation of „mutual interest“ in the application of Buy American`s revised policy. With respect to the United States in particular, since that is the main reason we are here today, the main advantage we bring is that we are the custodians of this special access window that is provided in the United States.