# Halifax wins $25-Billion shipbuilding contract (Vancouver 2nd)



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Call me flabbergasted._

Halifax (specifically, the Irving Shipyards) has won the $25-Billion contract to build naval and coast guard ships. Vancouver's Seaspan (U.S.-owned) gets the runner-up, $8-Billion contract.

This is an incredibly huge deal for the Maritime provinces... difficult to overstate the impact this will have on our long-suffering economy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

incredibly surprising.


----------



## ComputerBoffins (Oct 18, 2011)

Wow - I didn't think that was going to happen!

Great news for the East Coast!


----------



## johnp (Aug 7, 2011)

Good news for both coasts, but I was especially excited and happy to hear that Halifax won the "big' one -- "some good" news, eh!!!!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I hope Occupy Halifax shuts those greedy shipbuilders down!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Good for Vancouver, great for Halifax.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm pretty sure *this site* was a big factor in Halifax getting the win....


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Fabulous news for both coasts!!


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Seaspan couldn't handle the 25M contract on the West Coast and they knew it. Their bid was never expected to win.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

Very excited! This is huge for NS and the Atlantic Provinces. 

I teach at the community college, and our involvement is a huge pillar - educating and training the next generation of shipbuilders who will work and be able to retire at the same place. 

The economic spin-offs of this can't overstated. Insane. 

I expected it to be Halifax all along though. Davie in Quebec wasn't even bidding on the big contract. Vancouver had a great chance, but I just had a feeling Irving would get it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm thrilled for Halifax and happy for Vancouver also -- but what I'm most pleased to see is that everyone seems to agree the process was fair, transparent and honest.

The United States could learn A LOT from Canada ... but you guys already all knew that ...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Typical Harper, supporting the massive military industrial complex spending money that should have gone to education, healthcare, the homeless and the unemployed. Wasting billions of taxpayers money on things we don't need. Blah, blah, blah....

:lmao: Sounds familiar?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> :lmao: Sounds familiar?


Indeed it does.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah I heard conservatives were better money managers and won't waste our tax dollars too! :lmao::lmao:

All kinds of things for the light headed to swallow!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Typical Harper, supporting the massive military industrial complex spending money that should have gone to education, healthcare, the homeless and the unemployed. Wasting billions of taxpayers money on things we don't need. Blah, blah, blah....
> 
> :lmao: Sounds familiar?


Um... yeah? What's your point? Are you suggesting that because it's stupid for the government to waste our tax dollars on military build up*, workers in the Maritimes should refuse to take the jobs? If they're going to waste our tax dollars anyway, I don't see any reason Maritimers should refuse the work.

* I actually think there's a good case to be made for building icebreakers and arctic patrol capacity. It's just the larger warships that I see as being an extravagant waste of money.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Um... yeah? What's your point? Are you suggesting that because it's stupid for the government to waste our tax dollars on military build up*, workers in the Maritimes should refuse to take the jobs? If they're going to waste our tax dollars anyway, I don't see any reason Maritimers should refuse the work.
> 
> * I actually think there's a good case to be made for building icebreakers and arctic patrol capacity. It's just the larger warships that I see as being an extravagant waste of money.


No biggie bryanc, generally you lefties would be up in arms over this. So it's nice to see y'all supporting Uncle Steve in this endeavour. 

Just remember uncle Steve's other endeavours, such as newer prisons, new jets, etc.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Just remember uncle Steve's other endeavours, such as newer prisons, new jets, etc.


I do. And I oppose them all. That doesn't mean that if I were a contractor, I wouldn't bid on work building a new super jail we don't need. If Harper's going to waste our money anyway, one would be silly not to try to recover some of it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I do. And I oppose them all. That doesn't mean that if I were a contractor, I wouldn't bid on work building a new super jail we don't need. If Harper's going to waste our money anyway, one would be silly not to try to recover some of it.


How many squirming bryancs can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> ...generally you lefties would be up in arms over this. So it's nice to see y'all supporting Uncle Steve in this endeavour.


Many of us "lefties" are able to balance recognition of useful investment in Canada's ocean-going infrastructure, particularly our Arctic capabilities _given the ongoing effects of global warming_, with our belief-based-on-evidence and informed opinion that the Conservative government's other priorities (mass criminalization, unnecessary jail construction, cuts to scientific research at DFO, diminishing any federal commitment to alternative energy production) are misguided.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Many of us "lefties" are able to balance recognition of useful investment in Canada's ocean-going infrastructure, particularly our Arctic capabilities _given the ongoing effects of global warming_, with our belief-based-on-evidence and informed opinion that the Conservative government's other priorities (mass criminalization, unnecessary jail construction, cuts to scientific research at DFO, diminishing any federal commitment to alternative energy production) are misguided.


I will put this in the dictionary to accompany the definition of the word "hypocrisy".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I will put this in the dictionary to accompany the definition of the word "hypocrisy".


No wonder it's so hard to communicate with you. You are using a different language.

Apparently in MacFuryese "hypocrisy" means "internally consistent, rational, and reasonable." Who knew?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

And meanwhile, in BC, the current Premier is trying to take credit ... 

I'm glad that everyone is agreeing that the actual tendering process was open, fair, and without political interference. (So, shut up Christie. You had nothing to do with it. We all know you were just there for the photo-op.) 

We certainly don't need more fast ferry fiascos like when the BC NDP tried to develop an aluminium shipbuilding industry in BC on the backs of the taxpayers. They spent half a billion on 3 boats that were later sold back to the builders (under auction) for $19.5 million.

I hope the spin-offs from this are beneficial to local economies, and the shipyards are able to use the equipment upgrades and increased labour skills towards other shipbuilding such as ferries, etc. for many, many years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> No wonder it's so hard to communicate with you. You are using a different language.
> 
> Apparently in MacFuryese "hypocrisy" means "internally consistent, rational, and reasonable." Who knew?


Dancing around one's own logical disconnect is not consistent or rational.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Explain to me how viewing one spending priority as a good idea, and others as bad ideas, is "hypocrisy"?

Apparently I managed to finish a PhD without using a proper dictionary....

:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Apparently I managed to finish a PhD without using a proper dictionary....


You are IN the dictionary.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury's logic is very simple.

If a right wing government spent it, it's good.

A left, it's most definitely bad.

Class dismissed.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

In this picture who looks happier the "Industrialist or the Lefty"










I am glad to see the Harper Government spent the Billions in Canada as apposed to spending the money off shore to receive a better "price point" as many on the right insisted should be the manner to acquire the new vessels.

I am sad to see this money spent in Halifax as I wanted to retire "back home" and this injection of economic activity may finally put the price of housing out my reach.

Good news overall though! Great News for the home town relatives and friends.


----------



## sixteen12 (May 4, 2011)

Well this is exciting news for me given I'm in the marine industry. Hopefully some decent engineering jobs start popping up in Vancouver. Wouldn't mind living out my twenties there.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

sixteen12 said:


> Well this is exciting news for me given I'm in the marine industry. Hopefully some decent engineering jobs start popping up in Vancouver. Wouldn't mind living out my twenties there.


Vancouver is a great place to live if you can afford to and don't mind the rain. Don't turn your nose up at Halifax either. Good luck.


----------



## sixteen12 (May 4, 2011)

bryanc said:


> Vancouver is a great place to live if you can afford to and don't mind the rain. Don't turn your nose up at Halifax either. Good luck.


Nope Halifax is great, lived there for a summer and still routinely go back for work.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Davie (Davie Yards, of Levis, Que) in Montreal will be upset, They'll be calling it playing politics.
Shame really, The P.C.'s have really ruined any chance of political ties to Quebec now.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Some shame...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Workers want more details about ship contract*



> Irving has already launched a search for scores of tradespeople, including crane operators, spray painters, electricians, welders, machinists, engine workers, pipefitters and steelworkers.
> 
> As a result, a thick pile of resumes sits stacked inside the shipyard’s small security office.
> 
> “We’re getting an absolute flood of inquiries right now,” Durrell said. “We have over 10,000 resumes on file and we get up to 500 more each week.”





> Despite a commitment from the community college to ensure a trained, qualified workforce, some observers have questioned whether the province has the skilled labour force to meet the needs of the massive federal contract.
> 
> Ian Oulton, head of Dartmouth’s RKO Steel Ltd., has suggested Irving may need to hire foreign workers to meet demand.
> 
> ...



(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Its about time they built some of our ships in Canada. In no way am I arguing for protectionist spending, it just makes sense that it can be done in Canada.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ertman said:


> Its about time they built some of our ships in Canada. In no way am I arguing for protectionist spending, it just makes sense that it can be done in Canada.


Amen, brother. We have a state of the art shipyard here in NL, but it does not have the size or capacity to do huge jobs. Still, it has survived by being able to do repairs to off-shore oil platforms that were built in Korea and not have to be fixed here in NL due to flaws in their building practices and then having to drag it here to the east coast of Canada.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> Davie (Davie Yards, of Levis, Que) in Montreal will be upset, They'll be calling it playing politics.
> Shame really, The P.C.'s have really ruined any chance of political ties to Quebec now.


The conservatives weren't involved in the decision. Did you not read that everyone is in agreement that the process was fair, transparent and free of political influence. Geesh...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> The conservatives weren't involved in the decision. Did you not read that everyone is in agreement that the process was fair, transparent and free of political influence. Geesh...


While I disagree with the Conservative's spending priorities, I will say I'm impressed with what I've heard about how the decision about who to give these contracts to was made. I agree that it's nice that effort was made to ensure that the choice was fair, transparent, and without politics.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr. G., I worked in Clarenville during the Hibernia platform construction a bit further up the coast - took my team out there for a tour of the facility. Amazing construction job - they essentially built the platform in a mound of fill, and once it was complete, dug it out and floated it out to sea. The scale of it was immense!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Dr. G., I worked in Clarenville during the Hibernia platform construction a bit further up the coast - took my team out there for a tour of the facility. Amazing construction job - they essentially built the platform in a mound of fill, and once it was complete, dug it out and floated it out to sea. The scale of it was immense!


Yes, many a person worked at Bull Arm on the Hibernia gravity based structure as the platform for the Hibernia off-shore oil field. This is why it was strange when they lost out to a Korean plant to build one of these platforms for another one of our off-shore oil fields. Luckily, when the construction was considered sub-par, they received the tender to fix it along with some work contracted out to the Marystown ship yard. Many of these trained workers will be headed to NS for work on the Haifax project. Still, it's a lot closer to home than the trip to Fort Mac in AB.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> The conservatives weren't involved in the decision. Did you not read that everyone is in agreement that the process was fair, transparent and free of political influence. Geesh...


Doesn't matter


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> Doesn't matter


Really? Please explain.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Really? Please explain.


I knew you couldn't resist.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> I knew you couldn't resist.


Resist what?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Resist what?


Very good, You might be learning something here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> Very good, You might be learning something here.


Really? Learning what?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Really? Learning what?


I'm not trying to increase my post count,
I don't even really care about all posts I lost in the big crash way back when.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> I'm not trying to increase my post count,
> I don't even really care about all posts I lost in the big crash way back when.


Ok then. So what are you saying exactly?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> Ok then. So what are you saying exactly?


Ever seen the movie the Magic Christian?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Okay class, Did Vancouver really need this contract?
Montreal was in trouble, Jobs were at stake.

Davie really needed this contract to stay afloat,
It's a sad truth that this shipyard will go under now.

Thank you P.C. Government.
Doesn't matter that it had nothing to do with politics.
Doesn't matter that it had nothing to do with jobs,
But, This will stick in their craw for a long time.

Thank you Harper, You just sunk any chance of making inroads into Quebec.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Lawrence said:


> Okay class, Did Vancouver really need this contract?
> Montreal was in trouble, Jobs were at stake.
> 
> Davie really needed this contract to stay afloat,
> ...


Pretty simple to figure out. 

But I dont think Harper and co care much for Quebec. But it'd be interesting to see if that changes.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Pretty simple to figure out.
> 
> But I dont think Harper and co care much for Quebec. But it'd be interesting to see if that changes.


It's going to be a sad case for sure,
I'm sure the shipyard will probably sell off to some USA company cheap.

That's not to say that the Vancouver shipyard is Canadian either by the way.

Maybe Canada is selling itself down the river sort of speak.

Oh wait, I forgot, P.C.'s sell things don't they.
They even manage to get things sold that aren't their own.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> Okay class, Did Vancouver really need this contract?
> Montreal was in trouble, Jobs were at stake.
> 
> Davie really needed this contract to stay afloat,
> ...


If the contract is being offered transparently, it can't be given to a contractor who can't bid on it competitively. Some companies thrive and others who can't bid successfully may go under.

I thank Harper for not tossing another mult-billion dollar bone to Quebec. It's not as though it generates any goodwill anyway.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> If the contract is being offered transparently, it can't be given to a contractor who can't bid on it competitively. Some companies thrive and others who can't bid successfully may go under.
> 
> I thank Harper for not tossing another mult-billion dollar bone to Quebec. It's not as though it generates any goodwill anyway.


It's not going to be read as that though,
Considering Nova Scotia got the bigger part of the bone.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> It's not going to be read as that though,
> Considering Nova Scotia got the bigger part of the bone.


I agree it won't be read as that, but at the same time--MEH!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lawrence said:


> Okay class, Did Vancouver really need this contract?
> Montreal was in trouble, Jobs were at stake.
> 
> Davie really needed this contract to stay afloat,
> ...


Completely irrelevant argument. To throw a bone to a shipyard that isn't properly equipped to handle the job would be political interference and then the Opposition would be howling over that. The contacts were awarded on merit as they should be, to do what you suggest would have been political suicide for the Cons in the parts of country where they do get votes.

Just in case you don't realize, based on the last election the CPC have figured out they can win a majority without Quebec, so they don't need to pander to them either. 

The shipyard not getting the contract is not going to resonant throughout Quebec as it wasn't meaningful to the vast majority of the population and it will be forgotten in short order. Most Quebecer's didn't even know about the possibility of getting a ship building contract. It is far from being front of mind in the province.

Ok class, politics 101 is dismissed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

They may have figured out that they can achieve a slim majority without Quebec, but hinging all your success on that can be pretty shaky. But since McGuinty won the provincial which, I suspect the federal conservatives are glad of secretly, they may have an easier time holding Ontario.

I don't think many here need, a poli sci 101 lesson. I figure the one I had at Carleton should suffice.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

My understanding was that the Quebec bid was the shakiest proposition. The shipyard there has been tottering towards bankruptcy for years. If that's the truth, then I'm glad the coasts got the lion's share of these huuuuge shipbuilding gigs.

This decision looked like a lot of the politics had been stripped out of the process itself - something else I can applaud. Sure, Quebec will read the results as simply yet more politics as usual. But so what? The separatists are always looking for ways to be pissed at the nationalists, yet will nonetheless always be there, sticking out their hands for federal handouts.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

As far as the contracts go, agreed. Just commenting on the idea the conservatives don't need Quebec.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not now they don't. It's an old see-saw.

But as the power base shifts steadily westward there may just be more surprises in store.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

...and, another view from down home...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Not now they don't. It's an old see-saw.
> 
> But as the power base shifts steadily westward there may just be more surprises in store.


true. And as that occurs, Ontario begins to wonder what the hell is happening. You can only lame McGuinty for everything for so long before that gets real old. One can see pretty easily why Hudak was hung out to dry last election, I don't think Harper could afford a young firebrand of a conservative pulling an uber Rob Ford before the next federal election.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I think Ontario's problems go deeper than the dynamics of national politics. In a sense, they are structural. We had a strong manufacturing industry which propelled the economy for decades. Nowadays, wholesale outsourcing of manufactured goods has cooked that particular goose. So we've lost a large part of what traditionally drove the money here and we've replaced it with - what? Not a heck of a lot. Tourism? Knowledge workers? Yeah, there's still big stuff going on with the financial and culture sectors - but manufacturing was the bread and butter. It's a very different province from the one I was born in, half a century ago. I'm sure there are smart, enterprising Ontarians out there who understand that diversifying and extending is the way to go, but it's a tough slog. The West is ticking along nicely largely because of a resource-based economy, and energy is a hot commodity in a world that plays home to six billion people. As the money rolls in, it has an opportunity to put in place transportation and service infrastructure designed to accommodate growth decades into the future. It's well positioned to rise and consolidate its power and influence. We have the most people in our own province but I expect that, in time, that too may well change. Ontario could also merely be in a trough - an extended period in which it struggles to reinvent itself, find its legs again. Anything's possible.

As for Hudak, maybe the man was listening to the wrong people. I don't know. It could be that he would be a fine leader, but I'm rather happy he didn't get the chance this time. As I've said before, I just don't think Ontario's ills could best be served by a wave of conservative control at all levels of gubbmint.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

McGuinty promises electricity prices will double by 2015. That's the end of most new manufacturing in Ontario. You'd be an idiot to move your business here.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And Hudak would hold the rates at their present level? Give me a break.

No one has a crystal ball. If you're trying to suggest that McGuinty is single-handedly destroying the Ontario economy, I'm going to have to laugh at you. Don't make me do it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

is ontario finally going to stop subsidizing electricity then?

Funny words coming from a libertarian me thinks.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I am so happy for the east coast, they have been hit hard with US tourism being destroyed by the passport mandate, not to mention they have hardly had the any contracts given to them.. Quebec has been the province which has received most of every contracts in years, so I am glad.. Harper stuck it to them.. maybe they will learn that being french is not an automatic right to receive hand outs ( yes i know .. they will hold another we will leave referendum.. - but this time I hope they do.. )

As for our military.. for those that believe we do not need one or need to up date our military - you are wrong..
Our military has the oldest equipment around which is falling apart.. I stand by our government to improve what our troops use..
we can not keep sending them into battle (peace keeping ) with canvas covered jeeps.. or 40 year old planes - not to mention our rescue choppers that fall out of the sky.. Now that the arctic is at risk for land claims and passage rights ( more like natural resources ).. by US and Russia plus Greenland.. we need to stand up for our rights - we can not depend our southern neighbors to keep running to our rescue.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

macintosh doctor said:


> As for our military.. for those that believe we do not need one or need to up date our military - you are wrong..
> Our military has the oldest equipment around which is falling apart.. I stand by our government to improve what our troops use..
> we can not keep sending them into battle (peace keeping ) with canvas covered jeeps.


I agree with you here, but I'd solve the problem by not sending them into battle in foreign countries unnecessarily. At least until we have our finances in order, we shouldn't be supporting more than our share of foreign military adventuring by the US... and that would save us a fair bit of $$$.



> Now that the arctic is at risk for land claims and passage rights ( more like natural resources ).. by US and Russia plus Greenland.. we need to stand up for our rights - we can not depend our southern neighbors to keep running to our rescue.


Yep. This is something we have to invest in. But let's not do it by buying wildly expensive jets designed for service in the middle east. Buy the right equipment for the job, and buy only what we can afford.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's pretty funny stuff coming from a party that trumpets only spending on things you can afford. Certainly heard this line enough times from hudak.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> And Hudak would hold the rates at their present level? Give me a break.


He would have canceled contracts paying five times the going rate for "green energy." Ontario's energy crisis is a creation of McGuinty himself.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And in cancelling contracts you pay steep penalty fees. _There's_ your silver lining!

And what would your saviour Hudak do - open up defunct coal plants? Throw another pile of money at decrepit nuclear sites like Pickering?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what a bunch of idiotic nonsense.

The "energy crisis" as you call has been many years in the making.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> And Hudak would hold the rates at their present level? Give me a break.
> 
> No one has a crystal ball. If you're trying to suggest that McGuinty is single-handedly destroying the Ontario economy, I'm going to have to laugh at you. Don't make me do it.





Macfury said:


> He would have canceled contracts paying five times the going rate for "green energy." Ontario's energy crisis is a creation of McGuinty himself.





Max said:


> *And in cancelling contracts you pay steep penalty fees. There's your silver lining!
> *
> And what would your saviour Hudak do - open up defunct coal plants? Throw another pile of money at decrepit nuclear sites like Pickering?


Off topic guys... I'm bringing out my badge here... Quebec, Ontario's neighbour is a much more salient to the discussion, so if we are going to stay on topic let's talk about them as opposed to Ontario has nothing to do with the subject of the thread...

Pay attention or completely disregard my post as you choose... 

I have already declared my "thread police" status so please spare me the hypocritical comments... I know... I'm just trying to suggest that maybe we can stay on topic.

Except for the Max quote bolded which is actually relevant... this is a common civil/contract law practice and completely the norm... nothing to see here... at all.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Hoo boy._

Admitting to being a thread cop and yet claiming that any obstruction to that status as being hypocritical is delusional nonsense.

Such silly, inflated judgements, Screature. However, you remain free to pay attention or completely disregard this post, as you choose.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jeez some people make -me- look like I'm on 'ludes. Wasn't sure that was possible.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_...and now we get into the rather ugly part of actually moving ahead with these contracts, and making them benefit Canada as a whole... not an easy task._

*Ensuring "Made in Canada" fleet not so easy*



> Some estimates say that as much as 60 per cent of the ships’ material will not have that "Made in Canada" stamp. That is because much of the really important equipment — armaments, electronics and such — will inevitably come from companies such as Lockheed Martin Co. and Saab.
> 
> Even past that, it gets a little trickier on Canadian content.
> 
> ...


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's progress baby! This concept of 'Canadian made' and more jobs for Canada gets harder and harder as we continue to lick the arses of corporations in desparation for their heavenly trickle down manna.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The remainder of the Canadian steel industry is now owned by U.S. Steel Corp. and other steel giants from countries like Argentina and Russia — so much for the Canadian content stamp for the ships.


I don't suppose the genius who wrote this considered that all of the labour used to produce that steel was by Canadian workers. Last I checked, that was indeed a benefit to the economy and gave those employed by those firms a living.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

When one reads the rest of the article, one uncovers this little gem.



> But how much of the work will be done in Canada *and how much will come "off-the-racks" from offshore suppliers*, both in the U.S. and Europe?
> 
> The government, so far, has been dodging the bullet on that tricky question.


that doesn't help the Canadian worker much now does it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I don't suppose the genius who wrote this considered that all of the labour used to produce that steel was by Canadian workers. Last I checked, that was indeed a benefit to the economy and gave those employed by those firms a living.


When you have the mentality of someone living in a hippie commune, it's a little difficult to understand more complicated financial deals, SINC. If it doesn't translate immediately into dollar bills stuffed into a jar, all economic benefits become invisible to some people.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> When one reads the rest of the article, one uncovers this little gem.
> 
> that doesn't help the Canadian worker much now does it.


It is yet to be determined, no one knows at this point. However, if it is cheaper to buy off the rack parts rather than manufacture them here it is the fiscally responsible thing to do, there are still thousand of jobs and billions of dollars going into the local and regional economies.

I think it is ridiculous to think that every little nut and bolt etc. that goes into the ships will be made in Canada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I think it is ridiculous to think that every little nut and bolt etc. that goes into the ships will be made in Canada.


Exactly. Why should we tax Canadians more so we can buy local products at inflated prices? A "Buy Canadian" policy on all materials would probably result in massive cost over-runs. Makes as much sense as announcing that we are establishing a made-in Canada computer sale policy. 

I think a lot of these ideas are holdovers from the 19th century. Which country would you rather be: The one where Apple headquarters is located, or the one where all of the components are assembled? If you enacted policies that would force them to do both, you would lose the headquarters--and probably the component assembly work as well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> It is yet to be determined, no one knows at this point. However, if it is cheaper to buy off the rack parts rather than manufacture them here it is the fiscally responsible thing to do, there are still thousand of jobs and billions of dollars going into the local and regional economies.
> 
> I think it is ridiculous to think that every little nut and bolt etc. that goes into the ships will be made in Canada.


You may be right, but I will assert that it is ridiculous and quite gullible NOT to question this. Only if you are a hard line conservative willing to defend anything they do at any cost would you defend this so completely early on. Period.

It doesn't matter WHO is in government, these sorts of questions would be swirling in any case. If the tables were turned, it'd be the conservatives hollering about the deception of how 'Canadian' this project really is, and how the liberal government lied blah blah blah, and the liberals defending by saying well look at the jobs it's creating blah blah.

Same crap, different party. So much for better!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Why should we tax Canadians more so we can buy local products at inflated prices? A "Buy Canadian" policy on all materials would probably result in massive cost over-runs. Makes as much sense as announcing that we are establishing a made-in Canada computer sale policy.
> 
> I think a lot of these ideas are holdovers from the 19th century. Which country would you rather be: The one where Apple headquarters is located, or the one where all of the components are assembled? If you enacted policies that would force them to do both, *you would lose the headquarters*--and probably the component assembly work as well.


Bull. Apple wouldn't move to China anytime soon what a pile of nonsense.

Of course any related losses would result from the sort of playing victim and pandering to the big corporations, on your knees begging for the trickle down corporate arse kissers so desperately beg for and pray for.

Keep praying brother, keep praying. Maybe some rosary beads would help.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> You may be right, but I will assert that it is ridiculous and quite gullible NOT to question this.* Only if you are a hard line conservative willing to defend anything they do at any cost would you defend this so completely early on. Period.*
> 
> It doesn't matter WHO is in government, these sorts of questions would be swirling in any case. If the tables were turned, it'd be the conservatives hollering about the deception of how 'Canadian' this project really is, and how the liberal government lied blah blah blah, and the liberals defending by saying well look at the jobs it's creating blah blah.
> 
> Same crap, different party. So much for better!


I don't agree. This isn't about politics persay it is about getting dollar for money for the taxpayer. Period. 

The jobs have already been created in the Shipyards and the billions are going into the regions. If parts can be purchased more cost effectively than they can be manufactured at home then that is what should be done.

As for the rest of your post it is completely unnecessary to even bring up.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

We'll have to disagree here, because at this point people are just questioning things which I believe is healthy and should occur, more than it does already. To slather over this questioning before hard facts come down the pipe, is pure politics.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> We'll have to disagree here, because at this point people are just questioning things which I believe is healthy and should occur, more than it does already. *To slather over this questioning before hard facts come down the pipe, is pure politics.*


Why not wait for some facts first before speculation and FUD, that is what I object to in the media. Speculation, hersay, innuendo and FUD, personally I am sick of it, it would be nice to a see a story once in while that doesn't have those components.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Why not wait for some facts first before speculation and FUD, that is what I object to in the media. Speculation, hersay, inuendo and FUD, personally I am sick of it, it would be nice to a see a story once a while that doesn't have those components.


Sure it's tiring. But isn't that kinda the game as it's been played out for all parties in power? It must be tiring for conservatives because well, now tat they are in power well, the heat is on them now, it's much easier to be in opposition and holler all the accusations and innuendo. But one kinda hopes that by holding our government's feet to the fire in the media since they pretty much have absolute power anyway, that they might care once in a while to try and do the right thing publicly so they might get re-elected.

Standing around twiddling our thumbs and hoping they do the right things is kinda, well, ultra-canadian don't you think?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Sure it's tiring. But isn't that kinda the game as it's been played out for all parties in power? It must be tiring for conservatives because well, now tat they are in power well, *the heat is on them now, it's much easier to be in opposition and holler all the accusations and innuendo*. But one kinda hopes that by holding our government's feet to the fire in the media since they pretty much have absolute power anyway, that they might care once in a while to try and do the right thing publicly so they might get re-elected.
> 
> Standing around twiddling our thumbs and hoping they do the right things is kinda, well, ultra-canadian don't you think?


True, but it seems to have ratcheted up in the years since Chretien was in power. Even when he was, the media loved taking pot shots at the Reform and Canadian Alliance, it didn't seem they kept the Liberals feet to the fire in the same way they do the Cons today. But that being said I think that is in part because of the explosion of internet media and Facebook, Twitter and such, all of which were in their infancy when Chretien was PM.

I'm not suggesting anyone stand around twiddling their thumbs, but it would be nice to read a story with fulsome research that doesn't resort to the typical speculative devices, just straight up news with facts, point, counter point and if you don't know, don't publish it.


----------

