Holder simply speaking truth on military deal
London’s ranking federal Conservative backbencher says he won’t do any armtwisting to help steer federal military defence contracts to companies in his city.
Politically, that’s a head-shaker under any circumstances. Many voters naturally expect their MPS to go to bat for their bread-and-butter industries at home, no matter what.
In London, an arms merchant to the world, such a hands-off admission comes off even more eyebrow-raising since the city — in sharp contrast with its insurance-town image — is home to one of the globe’s largest factories that builds wheeled military vehicles.
Add in the city’s tough circumstances — it’s bled thousands of traditional manufacturing jobs, and is still hobbled by one of Canada’s highest metro jobless rates — and London West MP Ed Holder’s laissez-faire statement sounds a little like a political death wish. In fact, it was a refreshing bit of honesty. What triggered it were political denunciations of the Harper government, and calls by CAW president Ken Lewenza for other politicians to speak up for London, after two local defence firms lost a $1.2 billion deal last week to build armoured Canadian military patrol vehicles. The two London companies, General Dynamics Land Systems and London Machinery, both offshoots of U.S. defence giants — were edged by the Ottawa-based Canadian sister of another U.S. military giant, Textron. Much of the work will go to the U.S.
When times are tough, and headlines scream about jobs being exported, it’s easy for a politician to say, ‘Sorry, things are out of my hands.’ Holder, to his credit, went further, saying it’s precisely because such contract-awarding decisions are made by bureaucrats, not politicians, that he won’t button-hole for the local firms. “The whole principle of this is to keep it independent of political interference,” he said.
With two more Canadian army equipment contracts worth $3 billion in the works (London firms are also gunning for those), it’s worth considering the awkward box politicians are put into on such files. Yes, we want things aboveboard. But some don’t mind, maybe even expect, a little regional pork-barrelling as well. It’s a double standard.
Politicians who meddle when Ottawa goes shopping for the military do so at their peril. Brian Mulroney learned that in the late 1980s when his government awarded a fighter-jet maintenance contract to a Quebec company, even though a Winnipeg firm won the bid. Westerners never forgot. Before long, the Tories were reduced to two seats in Parliament — a “breeding pair,” as some called it — and the upstart Reform party stole the Tory turf.
In the same church, different pew, witness the furor over the current government’s push to spend billions on F-35 stealth fighter jets. Some of the opposition stems from the fact the Tories only focused on one option for new fighters, instead of casting a wider net.
Canadians expect fair and competitive dealings in government contracts, even if the work goes offshore. They expect the same — but don’t always get it — when Canadian firms go after government contracts in the U.S., where preferential “buy American” policies can be a problem. About that, taxpayers would be right to ask MPs to do some arm-twisting.
Last fall, just before Ottawa awarded $35 billion in contracts for new navy and coast guard vessels, it was suggested the arm’s-length rules for vetting such deals are so tight, even Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn’t know which shipbuilders would win.
If the boss himself is kept at such a distance, how would anyone expect low backbenchers to throw their weight around such files?