Editorial on ferries and politics in B.C.

[tyty]

B.C. politics never fails to amaze me.

Here we are, almost a month after the Queen of the North sinking and it appears our politicians feel enough time has passed to start the usual fingerpointing that has characterized our political culture over the years.

Today, the Liberals and NDP really kicked 'er up a notch following the announcement from Washington Marine Group (WMG) that they have too much other work to make the deadline for building the three new northern vessels.

WMG said the timeline is too tight, with its Vancouver and Victoria shipyards working to capacity with other contracts, including other projects for B.C. Ferries (e.g. the new intermediate vessel, Queen of Alberni mid-life upgrade).

Fine, WMG can't do the work.

Now, obviously we need these vessels replaced as soon as possible. One (the biggest and best) has been lost at sea, while the other two are out-of-date in terms of safety.

But today, NDP MLA Maurine Karagianis came out upset about the fact that B.C. Ferries moved up the timeline for building the new ferries from 2009 to 2008, WMG to pull out of the running.

Karagianis says the timeline should be extended. Why? Because it is unfortunate that "more work [on shipbuilding is] going to be leaving British Columbia."

So freaking what? I thought we went through this discussion with the Super Cs? Haven't they learned from the fast ferry fiasco, that you can't play favourites?

Obviously, Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon was not impressed. But did he have to say that we're "getting into the theatre of the absurd when it comes to the NDP?"

Probably not. But that's B.C. politics for you.

Falcon went on to say that the government wants the new ferries built as quickly as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't most people agree? That we need to get three ships back in service as quickly as possible? That we need safer ships built as quickly as possible?

Karagianis says there's no guarantee a foreign firm can meet the deadline either. No, but the odds are certainly a lot better; we're talking about ONE firm here in B.C. versus all the others around the world.

The sinking of the Queen of the North is still a sensitive issue for a lot of people - a lot of you reading this, I'm sure. And it's not just the loss of the ship or the two passengers presumed dead. The reduced ferry service is creating a fair amount of hardship for people in coastal communities dependent on the northern ferries.

But here we are watching our politicians use this issue to score political points over one another.

It's a shame they can't keep their mouths shut. I thought putting B.C. Ferries at an arms length from the government was supposed to keep the politicians out of their affairs, but it appears that's hardly the case.

Anyway, B.C. Ferries is hoping to have a final word on a replacement vessel for the Queen of the North within the next month.

President and CEO David Hahn says several used ships in Europe have been identified as capable of handling B.C.'s coastal waters. Hahn is optimistic he'll be able to make some sort of announcement soon.

"We're working pretty hard on that and hopefully in the next 30 days we'll be able to get something really nailed down solid to bring some certainty back into the business," Hahn told CKNW.

This replacement vessel would be in service for the 2007 season.

It's the best they can do. A new ship can't be built that quickly. Let's hope we don't have to listen to a whole bunch of bickering about B.C. Ferries not working hard enough to deal with the situation, etc.

After all, it's not like they can wave a magic wand and have a ship suddenly appear at Bear Cove.

Your thoughts are welcome...

[nolonger]

Well said! I for one am totally fed up with the government of the day blaming the government of yesterday for todays problems. I saw it today on the news about a man dying in the ER in Nanaimo. B.C.'s health minister trying to blame it on the old NDP government! Enough! Get on with it! Build some i swear too much ships!

[tyty]

Yeah, today I just suddenly got sick of hearing it. On the day of the QON sinking, we heard Premier Campbell and the NDP transportation critic (Gary Coons) "go there" but only cautiously. I was willing to ignore it and for most of the month that followed, the politicans were pretty good about this.

But in this last week, they've really picked up the fingerpointing. And it's really frustrating. None of these problems -- the QON sinking, the realities with finding a replacement, etc -- are political problems that can be blamed on the NDP or the Liberals.

So why are they making it out to be that way? I don't know. I felt I had to sound off about this.

[WettCoast]

So who is the author of the above?

Building ferries in BC builds this province. WAC Bennett knew this 40+ years ago. Campbell & company don't understand the concept.

Assuming that a newer used ferry is aquired to replace the QotN then one new ship is needed asap to replace the QPR which is now elderly at 40. Two other ships would not be needed until a year or two after that. Surely two of the ships at least could be built here.

Is our ship building industries' future to be repair work and construction of small vessels? That seems to be the BC 'Liberal' vision. Will we never see anything like the Spirit vessels being built here again?

[tyty]

I wrote that editorial.

I'm all for B.C. shipyards getting contracts, as long as they earn them. Taxpayers deserve to get the best bang for their buck. I don't think it's a question of what the B.C. Liberals' vision is. If our shipyards are only able to compete for repair work and small vessels, it's because they are falling behind in the global marketplace. That's just the reality of capitalism.

The big thing here is, if you start playing favourites and helping out local shipbuilders by awarding them contracts even if they're not the lowest bidder, you open the door to other industries in the province wanting similar help, basically amounting to a subsidy.

There are few conservative-minded governments that I know of that would ever go there. In my opinion, they shouldn't. But I'm a right-leaning person. That's just my own opinion. I am more worried about seeing my tax dollars spent carefully than to try and help out such-and-such industry. If I worked in the shipbuilding industry, my opinion might be different.

I will say that I side with the shipbuilders union in that they would prefer one large project over many little projects. But this is the way the cookie has crumbled - the QON sinking was an unexpected event and has changed things dramatically.

Had that NOT happened, I would have expected to see WMG compete very hard for the northern vessels and likely win the contract. After losing out on the Super Cs, surely they would sharpen their pencil a bit more...

[Neil]

The best solution would have been to buy the best available ship, have it in service by next summer, and stick with the production schedule that would have allowed WMG to build two new ferries here. They would have had two built in BC ships, with all the jobs and their ancillary benefits, and if they were left with one ship, purchased, which wasn't in the long run a perfect fit, so what? Is the Chilliwack an ideal vessel for the central coast? Of course not, but they've made do with it for years. Once again, local companies (I know, WMG is American owned) and local workers are passed over for a quick, and falsely cheaper fix.

[WettCoast]

WAC Bennett was hardly a left winger. He chose to build BC by building ships here.

Why not have offshore companies come in with thre own people and build our highways for us? I am sure that we could get the "Olympic Hwy" built for half the price. Or have we chosen to subsidize BC road-building companies?

[tyty]

Even if the timeline was left alone, there's no guarantee WMG would have won the the two-ship contract you refer to. But I do believe, as I mentioned in my previous post, that their odds would have been pretty good.

I'm not sure the local workers aren't being passed over for a cheaper fix. It would appear to me that BCF and the government are more concerned with getting the ferries replaced faster. I'm sure in the last little while they've taken a lot of heat from community leaders up north to get them replaced pronto.

[tyty]

wetcoastkidjst said:

WAC Bennett was hardly a left winger. He chose to build BC by building ships here.

Why not have offshore companies come in with thre own people and build our highways for us? I am sure that we could get the "Olympic Hwy" built for half the price. Or have we chosen to subsidize BC road-building companies?

There's some limitations, here, though. It is too costly for overseas companies to bring people, equipment, etc over to build highways. It's unfeasible and therefore they cannot compete. Local road building companies win highway contracts because they can do them for the lowest cost.

With shipbuilding, though, the shipyards can stay where they are. It's different.

[WettCoast]

Another thing, the Federal govt will have BCFS pay duties on the purchase of a foriegn built ship. Why, because they want to foster jobs for CANADIANS.

That is unless S. Harper decides to participate in the export of Canadian jobs.

[tyty]

Good point. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that...

[Neil]

I think that labour would have been very much onside in helping WMG make a very competitive bid, if a bit more time had been allowed. I can understand BC Ferries' action on this, but I don't think it was the best for BC as a whole, and it illustrates, I think, the folly in the ferry system functioning separately from overall provincial planning and infrastructure. But that's a bigger argument, and a much more political one.

[tyty]

Certainly, I agree that the union would have put in a good effort to make the WMG a competitive bid. There's no question about that, given the sting they all felt from losing out on the Super Cs.

As for the ferry system being placed at an arms length like it is, yes, it is quite an argument. It really just depends on where you feel the line should be drawn on privatization.

Personally, I like the fact that BCF is now financially more frugal, but I don't like the fact that the current arrangement can lead to ugly labour disruptions like we saw in December 2003. Because the ferries are an extension of our highway system and they're so essential to so many communities, I think it would have been best to keep it a Crown corporation.

On the other hand, I don't consider B.C. Rail's freight operations so "essential" (important, obviously, but it's not like people become standed on an island if the service halts). Again, it depends on where you draw the line. It's different for everyone.

[tyty]

wetcoastkidjst said:

Another thing, the Federal govt will have BCFS pay duties on the purchase of a foriegn built ship.

Interesting after listening to the archive of David Hahn's interview with CKNW on Wednesday morning.

He addressed exactly this issue:

"As we order these ships, we're going to have to send $150 million off to Ottawa and I think it would be very interesting if there could be some progressive thinking about helping us get that money NOT sent to Ottawa, so that we could generate ... four or five ships that could be clearly built here in B.C.

"Hopefully when George and others look at it, we'll find some way to maybe petition Ottawa to get some duty relief."

[Neil]

So... if we had the ships built locally, we could perhaps be looking at interminable delays on delivery, and massive cost over runs, because that's what you say happened on a military helicopter project in the UK. I guess there must be an analogy there, somewhere.

[Neil]

I don't believe that BC should have all our ferries built here just to keep people employed. It would be fiscally irresponsible to ignore opportunities overseas, and local industry could get far too fat and complacent if they knew they had a captive market, no matter what. However, it seems apparent that our current government, and BC Ferries management, has adopted a mindset with very fixed parameters, with regard to the re-building program. The only thing that seems to matter is the narrow concern of BC Ferries' profit, loss , and subsidy situation, and because the focus is so rigid, the greater good of the province's economy, which includes jobs and industrial activity, is perhaps being overlooked. Building everything here would probably be irresponsible in today's market, but I think it's false economy to almost automatically send everything overseas, and leave BC industry the crumbs.
You're right, Cascade. The 'private' BC Ferries is a sham. It's a public asset, and should be managed as such- like the parks, schools, and other necessary infrastructure.

[tyty]

hornbyguy said:

... it seems apparent that our current government, and BC Ferries management, has adopted a mindset with very fixed parameters, with regard to the re-building program. The only thing that seems to matter is the narrow concern of BC Ferries' profit, loss, and subsidy situation, and because the focus is so rigid, the greater good of the province's economy, which includes jobs and industrial activity, is perhaps being overlooked.

Yes, that is the thing about the way B.C. Ferries is now structured.

But, the other thing to remember is that British Columbians elected the B.C. Liberals with a majority of votes in 2001 and re-elected them in 2005. They clearly had the mandate from the people of this province to make changes, and one of the "biggies" for people when it came to the NDP was the way they fiddled around with B.C. Ferries.

I'm not surprised the Liberals put BCF at an arms length like this; I just think it was unnecessary. Surely stricter cost controls could have been in place while keeping it a Crown corporation.

Regardless of how the thing is structured, though, I personally do not agree with awarding a local shipyard a contract just for the sake of giving "x" number of workers some work.

MAYBE if the local yard is close to the lowest bid... say within 5% or something like that. Otherwise, the best financial choice is to go with the lowest bidder, even if that's a foreign firm.

[Scott]

The NDP wants BC Ferries to extend the "deadline" for a new ship so a local yard has a better chance. What's worse for the BC economy? A ship being built offshore or an extra year without two ferries on the North Coast?

[Neil]

There may be an argument made for accepting a bid considerably over a five percent difference, again, when you take into account the jobs provided, with their huge spin off benefits, the corporate, sales, and income taxes collected, the suppliers used, and other financial side issues which are positively impacted. I know these points have been made before, so I apologize for being repetitive. It's just that this issue will be an on going one as the re-build program proceeds, and I think the provincial government and BC Ferries need to be taken to task by the media and the public for their tunnel vision on the concept of cost-effectiveness. And despite what some have said previously, there is no way to keep politics out of this issue. BC Ferries operations are inextricably tied into the body politic of British Columbia. We need to deal with that reality, and try to see the bigger picture.
In general, though, tyty, I agree with a lot of what you said. I respect your viewpoint.

[Ferryman]

Well, it all depends how you look at it I guess. If the Ferries were to be built in BC, the money to go to building those ships would go to the workers paycheques. Once the Ferries have entered service, sooner or later, those workers are going to most likely travel on the ferries, so the money goes back to BCF. Kind of just like in a big circle.
If the ships are built offshore, most of the money goes to the workers there, that they will either spend on travelling on the ferries there, or simply travelling around their Country. So the money would never come back over here, leaving a bit of a gap here I guess. That's why it's kind of disappointing that WMG backed out of this one already. It would be nice to see brand new ships labelled, "built in BC" again, so that British Columbians can having something to be proud of, instead of seeing, "Built in Germany" all over it.

[WettCoast]

Assuming that we can buy a used vessel [to replace the QotN] to help us out in the short term, a delay of one year in the timing on delivery of additional vessels is acceptable. [One in 2009 to replace the QPR, a second one in 2010 to replace the QoChil, a 3rd one in 2011.] If a vessel can not be purchased to replace the QotN than having one built in a foriegn yard for 2008 delivery is the prudent thing to do.

In regard to the comment above: "Regardless of how the thing is structured, though, I personally do not agree with awarding a local shipyard a contract just for the sake of giving "x" number of workers some work."
It is in fact a lot more than x number of workers having a job. Local shipyards buy from local suppliers. Local workers shop in local stores. Local folks pay taxes to local governments, etc. It is called the 'multiplier effect' and means a great deal to BC economy and BC's pride, something in short supply.

Then there is the history of every vessel that was ever built for BC Ferries was built by BC yards and BC workers. Ferries bought second hand or aquired from take-overs of other companies are the exception.
From the Queen of Sidney up until the Spirit of Vancouver Island the government has believed in BC ship builders and BC workers until Gordon Campbell decided to change things.

[Low Light Mike]

I think we're at an ideological logjam on this issue. There's obviously strong opinions on both sides of the issues, and I don't think either side of the arguement is going to be persuaded totally.

Interesting debate though, but I don't think anyone's going to change someone else's point of view.

I think we can all agree that this "where to build" topic will be a point of disagreement both on this board and in the general public for the years to come.

I suggest that we move on to a simpler, less controversial topic, such as "Evolution vs Intelligent Design".........just kidding.

but I do think that we'll always have this difference of opinion....because this is a subject based on a difference of some fundamental beliefs that are not widely held. (now, am I talking about the ferry-builds, or about the evolution thing ?)

[tyty]

hornbyguy said:

despite what some have said previously, there is no way to keep politics out of this issue. BC Ferries operations are inextricably tied into the body politic of British Columbia. We need to deal with that reality, and try to see the bigger picture.

That's pretty much the point I was getting at, originally - the same that politics had to get involved eventually, despite the shame of the whole QON sinking. It seems a little insensitve to me.

hornbyguy said:

In general, though, tyty, I agree with a lot of what you said. I respect your viewpoint.

Thank you, sir.

[Neil]

So, HMCS Nanaimo. You want to debate evolution vs. intelligent design. Fine. Game on.
I think 'intelligent design' is an absolute crock, and as proof, I offer you the Queen of Chilliwack. Surely no one could suggest that an abomination like the old ex-Basto (close enough to a certain English word, that I'm sure the Norwegians knew what they were talking about) could have been the inspiration of a divine presence. No, in a world where we have our late, lamented Queen of The North, or the Columbia, we also have the floating car barns of the Baltic; obviously a sign of random, natural creation. Although I have to grant that evolution, and survival of the fittest, does not explain the strange, lingering existence of an ill-equipped beast like the Mill Bay. Sorry, Quinsam Teen.

[Neil]

.... and as to Cascade's post, if you want to find a place with a reputation for building ferries which last forty, fifty years or more, you would do well to look at British Columbia; a proven track record for quality, with few exceptions.