Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Quarter billion dollar mystery

4K views 63 replies 14 participants last post by  eMacMan 
#1 · (Edited)
OGL has a new quarter billion dollar mystery on his hands. Earlier this week we find out he can't look after 3.1 Billion Dollars for terrorists. What's the route cause of that?

AG say OGL can't procure Search and Rescue fixed winged or hover aircraft to replace the ancient models flying presently.

Now OGL pays 250 Million Dollars for plans, blueprints if you will, for Arctic Patrol Ships. Sadly Norway designed and built the ships for 100 million dollars.

OGL bought the plans from Norway for the Arctic Patrol Ships and then spent an additional 250 Million Dollars to what enhance the Norwegian Design?

Shipbuilding contract holds $250M mystery - Politics - CBC News

CBCNews said:
A CBC News investigation has uncovered a $250-million mystery at the heart of Canada's ambitious shipbuilding program.

Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose and Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced March 7 in Halifax that Ottawa will pay Irving Shipbuilding $288 million just to design – not build – a fleet of new Arctic offshore patrol ships.

Irving will then build the ships under a separate contract.

However, a survey of similar patrol ships bought by other countries shows they paid a fraction of that $288 million to actually build the ships – and paid less than a tenth as much for the design.

In addition, the design of Canada's new ships is based upon a Norwegian vessel whose design Ottawa has already bought for just $5 million.

The Norwegian ship, the Svalbard, was designed and built for less than $100 million in 2002.

Experts say the design price is normally 10-20 per cent of the total cost of the ships.

Another country with Arctic interests, Denmark, acquired two patrol ships for $105 million in 2007.

They have modest ice-breaking capability, similar to the Canadian project, which allows for the ships to crunch through "summer ice" – about one-metre thick.

The Irish navy now is building two offshore patrol ships for $125 million.

In all cases, these prices include the design.

Why is Canada paying more?

Ambrose, MacKay and Public Works officials running the Canadian project were not able to explain why Canada would pay so much more to get so much less: shelling out more than twice as much merely to produce a blueprint for similar ships, without building any.

In an interview, Ambrose referred the CBC to her officials for details. But those officials, in a prepared briefing for CBC News, said they were unable to provide details on where, exactly, the $288 million is going.

CBC News also asked MacKay to explain why Canada would pay Irving ten times as much for the design as other shipyards say it should cost.

MacKay replied "other shipyards are wrong," and left it at that.

The shipbuilding program has been portrayed by the Harper government as a model of transparency and rigour, in contrast to the ill-fated commitment to buy F-35 jet fighters...
 
#3 ·
From the story linked above:

"We are implementing what's called a design and then build strategy," the minister told CBC News. "What that means is that we are spending more money up front on the design and production phase. That's important because we want to make sure that the shipyards, and the navy, and the coast guard, get the design correct."

However, Ambrose did not cite any other country that fails to design first and build later. Interviews with both Ambrose and her officials were interrupted by government media handlers who cut off further questions.
 
#7 ·
We were asked to keep all Canadian political discussions in one thread. Do you think the world will end if this super-important thread follows the same rules as all the others?
 
#6 ·
Suspect at least some of this went to enhancing very fat bonuses for certain Harpo buds. Time will tell. If Harpo is dogged enough in his stall tactics the truth may come forth just before the next election.:D
 
#10 ·
Did The Mayor ask this of us?

I agree general flights of fancy need not have their own thread, but to lump something this major in with all the general background mumbling is to do a disservice to a major topic.

I think CubaMark is spot-on.
 
#18 ·
Then a subject such as this one becomes so much back-ground noise in with all the other mumbling?

That might turn someone off, who otherwise might be willing to participate in a specific thread .... if the tread stays on-topic.

;)
 
#22 ·
If it was The Stephen Harper thread, and everything else in the Canadian Political thread, the latter would have very little activity. ;)

Perhaps if we had one for each Province, as well as Federal, everyone's concerns would be addressed.
 
#25 ·
well I don't see many spamming ruthlessly there with blog posts.

Generally the biggest problem is bullies coming in and derailing any discussion, probably because they dislike where the discussion is going, and the constant repeating of misinformation to derail.

If a real discussion breaks out, it's often quickly squelched by some BS pretty quick.
 
#26 ·
Well at least they have something to write about

Sorry in my haste I posted a new topic in Everything Else Eh! not in The Canadian Political Thread.

I'm sure the administrator or the moderator(s) will remedy the situation if required.

I'm certainly please that my haste provided supporters of OGL a chance to comment in this thread. Without the questionable placement of pixels on this site what would Sinc or MF have to comment on? They certainly can not defend the actions of the current government.

I mean the self proclaimed best fiscal manager and self proclaimed open and transparent administrators (OGL's Conservatives) have failed so miserably with regard to this matter, the only choice for the supporters of this government would be to join in with the shock and outrage the majority of Canadians feel or I suppose just not post, go to ground, take cover, what ever you do when faced with the indefensible.

I'm sure talking points will be available after Question Period today (11 am Eastern) and readily supplied thereafter.

Well with regard to another area of derail of this tread. I shall forge ahead myself.

I understand OGL and the PMO have decided to stop the attack ads against Justin Trudeau. They will concentrate all of their efforts and re-double their attacks towards CBC News Reporter Terry Milewski for all his tough questions over the years to OGL and in particular breaking the news with regard to the outrageous spending for a ship's blueprints.

Terry Milewski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
#35 ·
but at least Tyrion gets the girls... LOL
 
#37 ·
Those Cons sure do love that $3.1 Billion$ number.

I think the AG should go back and take a look at anything with a $3.1 Billion$ pricetag.

CBC News is reporting that Ottawa appears to be overpaying for the design of the new ships, based on the costs of similar vessels bought by other countries.


The $288-million price tag for Halifax shipbuilder J.D. Irving to design the ships is many times higher than for ice-capable patrol vessels bought by Norway, Denmark and Ireland, according to ship-building experts CBC News interviewed.


And that's before construction of the ships, which is covered under a separate contract between Irving and Public Works Canada, which is administering the program for the Department of National Defence. The total cost of the program as announced in 2007 was estimated at $3.1 billion.

According to CBC News, Norway paid just $5 million to design the Svalbard, the vessel on which the Canadian ships' design will be based. The total cost including construction was $100 million in 2002. Denmark got two similar ships for $105 million in 2007, all in. The Irish navy is spending $125 million for two patrol ships now under construction, CBC News said.
The original CBC story here:
Shipbuilding contract holds $250M mystery - Politics - CBC News
 
#40 ·
#38 ·
BTW nowhere in any of the articles have I seen specified the number of ships to be built.

Closest we have so far is "a fleet". Are we talking 25-30 ships? In that case the $3.1 Billion$ overall estimate is probably justified. Are we talking the typical Con job of 4 ships? In which case the cost is listing dangerously towards the Con buds.
 
#43 ·
Actually liberals were worse. LOL
I am trying to find pictures of the Jean in front of all the resorts they bank rolled
For friends a d family with tax
Payers money.
Don't forget the sea king chopper fiasco
 
#47 · (Edited)
Irving hits back over CBC Arctic patrol ship story

Irving hits back over CBC Arctic patrol ship story
iPolitics

Uh Oh seems CBC has gotten it wrong again... nope no agenda there at all.

In a full-page ad in this weekend’s Ottawa Citizen, Irving Shipbuilding responded to last week’s CBC story that claimed Canada was paying as much as ten times for just the design of its offshore Arctic patrol ships than what other countries had paid for both the design and manufacture of similar vessels.

In its ad, Irving called the story “inaccurate and inflammatory,” and alleges that CBC “made absolutely no effort” to contact Irving before they broadcast the story – and that Irving only heard form the CBC afterward.

Irving also specifies – as a release from Public Works did late last week – that the contract the government signed with Irving for up to $288 million is for what’s called a “definition” phase contract. “The scope of our contract is well beyond the simple ‘blueprints’ referenced by CBC,” Irving said in its ad.

It goes on to state that the contract involves engineering and “detailed 3 dimensional electronic modeling;” down payments on things like radar and engines; “advanced construction of a large section of the first ship to test the design;” and that a full $38 million of the $288 million is eaten up by HST.


CBC’s story broke Thursday and alleged that Canada was perhaps paying as much as $250 million more for this phase of the shipbuilding contract than it should be, quoting anonymous sources.

On Friday, the Opposition held off asking questions in the House of Commons on the story, but New Democrat critic Matthew Kellway told iPolitics he was looking for an explanation.

“How do you explain this? Well, I can’t. And… it really is for them to explain, and they can’t explain it, is the problem,” Kellway said. “As the critic, I don’t have access to the thinking, decision making, documentation that might account for that, but they have neither put that stuff forward.”
 
#48 ·
The CBC apparently needs a bigger budget so they can hammer the Conservative party more accurately. You'll see no apology on EfMac after all of the back-slapping and braying about this non-issue.
 
#50 ·
CBC could save money for these hammers if they switched from color broadcasting to black and white. Just a thought.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxWTDcP9Y5E]Peter, Paul and Mary - If I Had A Hammer (1963 performance) - YouTube[/ame]
 
#51 ·
Are you suggesting it might just be a Con job?

The question I would like answered is: How many ships are Canadians going to get for the $3.1 Billion$ budgeted???????????????????????????????

Again if in the 25 to 30 range no problem; If only four very big problem.
 
#53 ·
(CROSS-POSTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD)

SINC, this doesn't appear to be a deliberate distortion of reality à la Faux News: In the original story, CBC notes that it did ask for an explanation of the cost, and neither the government minister (Ambrose) nor her office could provide the breakdown / explanation. Due diligence was performed.

The CBC has updated the story on their website in response to Irving's ad:

Irving responds with ad

Following the broadcast of this story, both the federal department of Public Works and Irving Shipbuilding objected to it. The government called it "misinformation" and Irving, in a newspaper advertisement, called it "inaccurate."

However, neither Irving nor the government denied that Canada is, indeed, paying far more to design its patrol ships than other countries pay to build them. Equally, neither explained why this is so.

Nevertheless, Irving did claim that its contract to design the ships is not a "design contract" but a "definition contract" including some items which are not strictly "design."

The government, however, agreed that 70% of the contract is, indeed, design. As the government announced on March 7th, "with this contract, Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will refine and complete the Arctic/Offshore patrol ships design to production level prior to construction in 2015."

Neither the government nor Irving claimed that the non-design items would change the fact that Canada's design bill alone is much higher than the price paid by other countries to put completed ships in the water.

Irving did not place any value on these non-design items, but said they include "engineering and detailed 3D electronic modelling."

Its advertisement did not say why this would not qualify as normal design work in the shipbuilding industry. It also noted that the contract includes HST.

Irving's ad says, though, that the contract also includes "down payments on major equipment items like radar and engines that must be ordered well in advance."

CBC News took these fully into account, and the amounts do not alter the conclusion that Canada is paying far more for the design work alone than other countries pay to build similar ships.

Asked to provide figures to contradict this, the department of Public Works did not do so either before or after the broadcast.

Irving also says the contract includes construction of "a large section of the first ship to test the design."

That, too, was also known and taken into account by CBC News, after discussion with Public Works officials, who described the test module as "optional" and were unsure of its cost.

Experts consulted by CBC estimated it at $5 – $10 million.

Public Works officials would not provide the cost, or an estimate.

But they suggested $10 million was not an unreasonable amount for what they termed a "test" production module, to "test" Irving's shipyard.

"We haven't yet negotiated that cost," an official told CBC News.​
 
#54 ·
CM, it is entirely deliberate when you don't finish the story. To publish it without Irving's input is the bias. It is a lot harder to undo something after they broadcast it as fact and the CBC knows it. Au contraire, it is a clear sample of their bias and manipulation of the real story to make the Cons look bad. Trouble is, they have now done that to themselves and given Canadians one more reason not to trust them.
 
#58 ·
I respectfully disagree. This story arose from a press conference of the contract announcement on March 7th, and follow-up interviews with Ambrose and her department officials subsequently. Miliewsky went to the minister and department who announced the contract and were unable (or unwilling) to explain why the costs of this phase of the contract were so high compared to other contracts (the CBC is standing by their assessment post-Irving ad, with an admission from the government that the majority of that contract (70%) is design, and above the norm.

IF Miliewsky had gone to Irving, and Irving had provided the same information they put into their advert, the questions would remain.

With all due respect, I suggest that it is the bias of critics of the CBC who are expecting the reporter to go to Irving for clarification, when the Minister of Public Works should have been able to answer the simple question of why the contract is so much more expensive than what appears to be the norm. This makes you appear to be apologists for the Conservatives. Frankly, for those who are opposed to government waste, one would think that you fellas would be a wee bit more upset with Ambrose / Public Works / Harper.

If I have concerns about a particular minister's travel expenses, I don't go to Air Canada asking why the tickets cost so much. I go to the minister and ask him/her where the money went. How is this different?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top