# History of shipbuilding in Canada - Since WW II



## gwp (24 Nov 2008)

Naval Procurement/Shipbuilding in Canada - A flawed process
A paper by the Navy League of Canada

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/Currie_Papers/Currie%20Paper%201-08%20Navy%20League.pdf


----------



## cameron (28 Dec 2008)

Excellent article, a must read.


----------



## gwp (8 Jan 2009)

Can the discussion move the process ahead?

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 	2009.01.08
EDITION: 	National
SECTION: 	Editorial
PAGE: 	A14
ILLUSTRATION:	Black & White Photo: /; 
BYLINE: 	Patrick Lennox and Aaron Plamondon
________________________________________
Build ships, be heard
________________________________________
This summer, Canada had four warships and over 1,000 sailors positioned off the Horn of Africa. Contributing to stability in that troubled maritime region through the conduct of anti-piracy patrols, and the escort of World Food Program vessels into Mogadishu to help feed starving Somalis, the Canadian Navy had a lead role to play in one of the evolving crises of the international system. 
Today, there are no Canadian warships or sailors in the Gulf of Aden where piracy threatens to clot a vital commercial artery in a time of global economic turmoil, and Somalia threatens to become the African Afghanistan. Nor was there a Canadian naval presence in the Arabian Sea at the time when a commercial vessel was hijacked and used to transport terrorists into Mumbai to carry out their heinous siege of India's commercial capital. 
The reason is straightforward: The Canadian Navy is underfunded, understaffed and underequipped. Despite its quiet professionalism, and the respect it gets from allied navies, our navy receives virtually no appreciation at home for what it can achieve in helping to realize Canada's objectives. 
As a "three-coast country" deeply dependent upon the stability and security of the oceanic highway across which 90% of the world's trade travels, Canada is obligated to help keep the seas safe from piracy and terrorism. This involves sending our old grey hulls into distant waters to act as a stabilizing presence. The silhouette of a warship on the horizon is enough to send pirates scurrying in their skiffs back to their hideouts, and enough to make terrorists think twice. 
In exchange for having warships underway in far away seas, Canada earns a voice in the deliberations over the matters of the day in New York, Washington and Brussels. For a G7 nation, free riding on America's willingness to shell out for the public good of global stability should not be considered an option. 
The most essential public good in this era of globalization is the oceanic infrastructure which allows for the free flow of commercial goods from country to country. The stability of the seaways is accordingly the most fundamental element of our current world order. 
As Canadian politicians search for ways to breathe new life into a flagging economy and fresh air into the poisoned chambers of a divided House of Commons, they should consider making a major reinvestment in the Canadian navy as a way of killing two birds with one stone. 
Over the last year, the government postponed two major shipbuilding projects -- the navy's Joint Support Ships (JSS) and the coast guard's patrol vessels. Although domestic industry had shown interest in fulfilling the procurements, in both cases the bids submitted were over budget and the government chose to suspend the projects. The Conservatives used the JSS project as the cornerstone of the procurement portion of their Canada First Defence Strategy two years ago. 
One of the primary reasons for the non-compliant bid for the JSS was that steel had doubled in price and the government's quote was not realistic. Negotiations between Treasury Board and the Defence Department have continued, however, and the federal government plans to convene a shipbuilding conference early this year to see what can be done. If an agreement can be reached, it will remain to be seen if the industry can reassemble the necessary personnel to carry out such a complicated procurement. Few things are more complex than building a naval vessel and most of the required workers left Canada long ago due to lack of stable employment. If successful, it would also be possible to replace Canada's ageing fleet of destroyers and build a new fleet of icebreakers at home. 
These ventures would help offset the job losses in the manufacturing sector that are sure to follow as American automakers restructure to meet the demands of a rapidly changing market. Injecting billions into these particular shipbuilding projects in the short term, and establishing an all-parties agreement to keep up a continuous shipbuilding program in the long term, will stimulate the economy today and create jobs that will be around for tomorrow. It will ensure that Canada continues to possess the naval capabilities required to share in the maintenance of secure global seaways, upon which the health and prosperity of the global economy rely. And it will help Canada maintain influence in the world going forward. 
It is time to start building our navy again. Now. - Dr. Patrick Lennox and Dr. Aaron Plamondon are research fellows at the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary.


----------



## cameron (8 Jan 2009)

Thanks for posting gwp, I could not agree with this article more.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (1 Feb 2009)

I have not reviewed the budget in thorough detail, but I dont recall seeing any new funding for DND or the navy in particular.  Can anyone correct me on this?


----------



## Snakedoc (3 Feb 2009)

neither did I, shipbuilding would be a great way to offset the losses in the manufacturing sector, especially with the transferable skill set inherent in the auto sector.  We have to build ships either way, it makes more sense to build them now during a recession to help lessen the blow on the economy rather than later when times are good and these projects have less of a positive impact.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2009)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> neither did I, shipbuilding would be a great way to offset the losses in the manufacturing sector, especially with the transferable skill set inherent in the auto sector.  We have to build ships either way, it makes more sense to build them now during a recession to help lessen the blow on the economy rather than later when times are good and these projects have less of a positive impact.



Unfortunately our shipbuilding industry was not competitive enough to stay alive.


----------



## Harley Sailor (4 Feb 2009)

As someone who was greatly involved with the last war ship Canada built I can see why our ship building went under.  To start with SJSL spent so much money upgrading their facility to build the ships that there was not much profit in it for them.  Their labour cost were so high that they could not afford to keep the facility open after the project was completed.  Over half of their workers came from places like Scotland because we did not have the experience to build such ships.  The ships were built to such cost cutting standards that a lot of work had to be redone due to substandard work.  I was part of the project that tracked mistakes and redoes.  There was over 4000 on each of the first two ships.  Ok, some were as little as the wrong colour paint on a part.  Others were things like a cabinet facing the wrong way, or missing completely.  Then there were pipes or wires run in the wrong places.  Anyone that has worked on more then one CPF can tell you that for some reason they are not all the same, even if they came off the same blue print.

Yes, shipbuilding would bring jobs and money to the needy.  Hopefully this time it will be local people who are the needy and the work will be up to standard.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Feb 2009)

Harley Sailor said:
			
		

> As someone who was greatly involved with the last war ship Canada built I can see why our ship building went under.  To start with SJSL spent so much money upgrading their facility to build the ships that there was not much profit in it for them.  Their labour cost were so high that they could not afford to keep the facility open after the project was completed.  Over half of their workers came from places like Scotland because we did not have the experience to build such ships.  The ships were built to such cost cutting standards that a lot of work had to be redone due to substandard work.  I was part of the project that tracked mistakes and redoes.  There was over 4000 on each of the first two ships.  Ok, some were as little as the wrong colour paint on a part.  Others were things like a cabinet facing the wrong way, or missing completely.  Then there were pipes or wires run in the wrong places.  Anyone that has worked on more then one CPF can tell you that for some reason they are not all the same, even if they came off the same blue print.
> 
> Yes, shipbuilding would bring jobs and money to the needy.  Hopefully this time it will be local people who are the needy and the work will be up to standard.



Is this even possible?  If we dont have local manpower on hand that is qualified for this type of work then the thought is already dead on arrival.  If we insist on building ships here for the economic benefit but hire foreign workers to do the job, what have we really accomplished?

I think the only way this is going to work is if the government takes a long term view to this.  Spend some money up front just for the sake of restablishing this capability in Canada and then ensuring it stays.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Is this even possible?  If we dont have local manpower on hand that is qualified for this type of work then the thought is already dead on arrival.  If we insist on building ships here for the economic benefit but hire foreign workers to do the job, what have we really accomplished?



When you look at industrial and economic benefits you have to look at a very broad picture.  It may be that the shipyard hires a lot of foreign labour for the shop floor, but there are also a lot of jobs of a less specialized nature in the yard, like human resources, project management, etc.  There's also a lot of money to be spent outside of the yard on materials, parts, etc.  And everyone involved, including the foreign workers, is living and spending money in Canada, and bringing about additional economic activity (housing, food, building a new parking lot at the yard to accommodate all of their cars, servicing those same cars, and on and on).


----------



## FSTO (18 Feb 2009)

Looks like this discussion of shipbuilding is once again stillborn as represented by this report:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/18/i-saw-no-ships-come-sailing-in-on-budget-day-on-budget-day/


----------

