Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Now this contract makes sense

Canada: Peerless Garments wins CF Rainwear contract

The Honourable Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the Honourable Christian Paradis, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, and the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, announced the awarding of a contract to Peerless Garments of Winnipeg to supply camouflage rain suits to Canadian Forces' soldiers.
- the suit was developed in Canada by DND/Public works and the textile industry;

- we have the manufacturing capability to produce the product NOW (first delivery is this spring);

- the rain gear will utilize CADPAT pattern also developed by DND;

- Peerless is already a supplier to the CF under the "Clothe the Soldier" program. This contract (3 years - $35.5 million dollars) will help secure 500 jobs at their Winnipeg facility.

Regarding the truck contract, apparently the CAW is now going to be demonstrating this Saturday in front of Chatham-Kent Conservative MP Dave Van Kesteren's office.
Military truck deal defended by minister

CAW Local 127 officials claim the medium support vehicles for the Canadian Forces could have been built in the Chatham plant.

But company spokesman Roy Wiley said yesterday it would be far too costly to retool the Chatham plant to handle the order.

...

Both the U. S. contract and large layoffs at the Chatham truck plant will be front and centre during a demonstration scheduled Saturday in front of Van Kesteren's Chatham office.

National CAW president Ken Lewenza will travel to Chatham to be take part in the rally.

I would be really interested in hearing what CAW President Ken Lewenza thinks the cost would be to manufacture this vehicle in Chatham and still make delivery timelines. The Chatham plant belongs to Navistar's commercial division and manufactures trucks exclusively for the civilian industry. The American plant tapped to manufacture the military trucks belongs to Navistar's Defence division and manufactures only military vehicles. The Chatham plant would have to be re-tooled to either run both military or civilian vehicles or transitioned to military vehicles only. Navistar would have to change their parts supply lines, train workers, run pilots, conduct quality testing and be ready to go by the summer. Then they would have to produce 1300 trucks, all for the total sum of $245 million dollars. Realistic?

My guess is the contract cost would at least triple, if not more, and the delivery dates would be pushed back to 2010.

We're providing billions of dollars to the automotive industry in Canada with the provisio they become more efficient and competitive. Why would we give hundreds of millions (if not a billion) to another automotive manufacturer and tell them to do the exact opposite?

3 Comments:

Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

"Regarding the truck contract, apparently the CAW is now going to be demonstrating this Saturday in front of Chatham-Kent Conservative MP Dave Van Kesteren's office ... CAW Local 127 officials claim the medium support vehicles for the Canadian Forces could have been built in the Chatham plant."

And maybe the BILLIONS spent ANNUALLY by the US Dept of Defense for the LAVs and many other items manufactured in Canada (mostly in Ontario) could be spent in the US (mostly in UAW and other unionized staffed plants in states with Democratic-controlled Congressional delegations).

The Democratic Party and the new Democratic administration in the US is heavily beholden to American unions and nowhere near the Republican Party's belief in the benefits of Free Trade and NAFTA. So I'd advise the CAW and other like-minded Canadian unionists to be careful of what they wish for. Parochial, hypocritical protectionism could start an ugly trend that could undo a lot of the enormous bilateral economic good done by NAFTA.

11:30 a.m., January 21, 2009  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Quite.

Mark
Ottawa

4:05 p.m., January 21, 2009  
Blogger WE Speak said...

You hit the nail on the head Dave.

4:16 p.m., January 21, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home