Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax won the lion’s share of the work, with the $25-billion contract to build around 22 combat vessels, while Seaspan in Vancouver will be happy with its $8-billion non-combat vessel consolation prize. There will be bleating from Quebec that its Davie yard won bupkis, but even Premier Jean Charest, always evenly balanced with a chip on either shoulder, didn’t argue that the process was skewed against his province.
The Harper government bent over backwards to persuade anyone who would listen that this was a “transparent, arm’s length process.” Rona Ambrose, the Public Works Minister, said Cabinet was not involved in evaluating the bids.
The winners were revealed at a press conference in Ottawa by senior Public Works bureaucrat François Guimont, who described how a number of third party evaluators, including a Fairness Monitor, were employed to ensure the process was above board and non-partisan.
Peter Woods, the Fairness Monitor, concluded the decisions was “free from personal favouritism and political influence,” an opinion backed by NDP shipbuilding critic Peter Stoffer, who said he saw no evidence of political interference. “I’m willing to give the government credit for the independence of the process….It’s a great day for all of Canada,” he said.
Then again, he is from Halifax. The NDP leader, Nycole Turmel, was less enthusiastic, slamming the Conservatives for picking winners and losers and saying the decision leaves the Quebec shipyard vulnerable. Still, this is hardly the first time Ms. Turmel and her caucus have been strangers to one another when it comes to the party line.
Ring-fencing the process from political involvement was a smart strategy by the government and they’re probably now wishing they had used similar third party validation when they chose the F-35 fighter plane that caused them so much grief when it was revealed that they hadn’t held a competitive bidding process.
But, while the government may be able to deflect criticisms of bias, it is going to have a tougher job explaining that taxpayers’ money is being well spent.
If we accept we need all the ships the navy and coast guard says we do — and there are plenty of leaky old tubs out there that should have been decommissioned years ago — then a free trade warrior with an aversion to national strategies like Stephen Harper should have bought some off-the-shelf solutions at the cheapest price from international yards. Instead, we will pay an estimated 20% more to build them here.
The goal, according to the government, is to use a “once-in-generation opportunity” to build a “stronger, more sustainable” Canadian marine industry. But is it really sustainable? Are we likely to be building ships for export? Not according to anyone who knows anything about the economics of shipbuilding.
Quite apart from propping up an industry that would be uneconomic without government largesse, there must be serious doubts that the bill will actually come in at $35-billion.
The recent history of major military procurement projects in Canada do not inspire any confidence that the planned investments will come in on time or on budget. From the Chinook helicopters, around 70% over budget and years late, to the $2.6-billion joint supply ship design process that is now in disarray, the ability of National Defence and Public Works to manage such big procurement projects has been sadly absent.
This is clearly a great day for ship yard workers and component suppliers across the land.
But to say we are supplying the Canadian navy with the best equipment at the best price is a serious misrepresentation of the facts – as a future Auditor-General will inevitably point out a decade or two from now.
Origin
Source: National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment