Dan Middlemiss, 16 December 2020.
Here we go again! From his voluminous collection of interviews and Access To Information (ATI) documents, David Pugliese has just published two more articles questioning the scope and value of the proposed Industry and Technological Benefits (ITB) flowing from the CSC project [1].
There are interesting revelations here about the behind-the-scenes infighting between contractors and government officials about the Ottawa’s approach to infusing greater ‘Canadian Content’ into the CSC process. Pugliese is always good when he is showing that not everything is as it appears under Ottawa’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS).
But what is Pugliese really up to in the series of long articles he has recently published? I suspect that Pugliese is ‘chumming the waters’ – to use a fishing phrase – in an effort to attract the ‘sharks’ of critics and outright opponents of the CSC project as it is currently conceived. The timing of these articles is telling. Pugliese may be trying to draw attention to what he perceives to be serious flaws in the CSC project before the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) releases his report on the latest cost projections of for the CSC – sure to be a large and controversial sum – next February, and before the run-up to a possible spring 2021 federal election.
No question there is a bias at play here, but Pugliese knows all too well that once the CSC contract is signed, it will be too late to alter the course of the project in any significant way after the fact.
I predict there will be much more to come from Pugliese on the topic of CSC.
References
- David Pugliese, “$70 billion warship project promised thousands of jobs, but who knows how many will be delivered?”, Ottawa Citizen, (14 December 2020). [Accessed at: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/70-billion-warship-project-promised-thousands-of-jobs-but-who-knows-how-many-will-be-delivered]; and David Pugliese, “Top of the line Canadian-made naval equipment shut out of $70-billion warship program”, Ottawa Citizen, (16 December 2020). [Accessed at: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/top-of-the-line-canadian-made-naval-equipment-shut-out-of-70-billion-warship-program]
3 thoughts on “CSC Jobs and Industrial Benefits: Pugliese on a Roll!?”
Interesting articles from David Pugliese. It seems to me that all this direct/indirect “job creation” touted by Canada’s government, Lockheed Martin (LM) and Irving Shipyard on the CSC program seem to be a huge smoke screen to confuse the Canadian people. It seems to me that the majority of LMs “major partners” especially BAE systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA, Ultra Electronics have or had dealings with LM at one time or another. All major equipment comes from either LM or American companies with no major representation from any Canadian companies with perhaps the exception of MDA Canada. So not much direct or indirect Canadian high-end jobs there. The job figures from the government just don’t seem to add up. The only figures that have been seen is perhaps 9000-10000 direct/indirect jobs coming from the CSC program, not the 50,000 jobs expressed by the Canadian governments’ Information Superclusters Initiative for the CSC program over 10 years. Even the PBOs estimates of 27,000 jobs created seem too far-fetched. I still believe though that the SPY 7 V 1 Radar was the right decision for the CSC Frigate and will prove to be an excellent AAW fit for the frigate. The SPY 6 V 1 from Raytheon being fitted on the Arleigh Burkes Flt III will prove to be too heavy for the CSC mast and costs would be a non-starter.
General Dynamics Canada is a Canadian subsidiary of parent company in the US, Thales is a subsidiary of a parent company in France, DRS is a subsidiary of a parent company in Italy. Even though they employ Canadians where does people think their profits are going in the end? Lockheed Martian is also using systems from MDA and CAE both wholly owned Canadian companies and that was conveniently left out. Just because it was made in Canada doesn’t necessarily mean its right for this project and some of this was years ago, why now? Perhaps Mr. Pugliese should have reviewed the “thousands” of documents a little closer.
Yes, MDA & CAE Canada are both Canadian owned companies that have been involved with Canadian military projects for several years now. The only project that MDA is required to supply the Type 26 Frigate is the X Band Illumination Radar which they will collaborate with another company. We do not know what X Band radar MDA will “produce” but it is “speculated” they will contract out possibly to Thales (from France) for the Sea Fire 500 X Band Illumination AESA radar. It is small enough to fit perfectly under the SPY 7 V 1 AESA radar as seen from any photos that have been produced by LM (however this is just speculation at this time). CAE has been involved with simulation systems for the CAF as well as projects in the US and other European countries and has a world-wide work force of over 10,000 personnel. It will possibly be working on mission training systems for the Type 26 Frigate.