Dear Jim,

A follow-up to a letter received from your company and posted last week in answer to a brief item we had titled: "The world according to Big Bad Jim - A Tall Ships Tale Indeed", which was a revisit of this CBC article. 'Big Bad Jim', of course, a lyrically alliterative riff off the title of the famous Grammy Award winning song 'Big Bad John'. As you can imagine, a number of Canadians are greatly interested in your shipbuilding programs. In order to provide our readers with a more fulsome picture, would you kindly expand on the following:

* Though there appear to be a couple of aesthetic differences, the main specifications of your 'Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships' and the Danish, Norwegian and Irish ships appear almost identical in most, perhaps every, way - for example in dimensions, propulsion and so on. 'Similar ships', is how the CBC described them. And as the CBC noted, neither you nor the government would explain why 'Canada is, indeed, paying far more to design its patrol ships than other countries pay to build them. Equally, neither explained why this is so.' Could you please explain why the cost would therefore be exponentially higher? By some calculations, up to seven times the cost.

* The CBC reported that the government already bought the design for $5M. You state that the $288m design contract you received included long-lead items - can you please explain what long-lead items were included in this? You state that these funds were also used to build 'initial units' - are you referring to the previously reported 'test module' which would allow you to practice at shipbuilding but does not actually form any part of a final ship? Does this mean that the taxpayer is therefore effectively paying for you to test your shipyard?

* What is your response to the Senate's recent report where they have put a massive question mark over the value of this program for both the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian taxpayer, stating that the ships couldn't even catch up with a BC ferry? Or how about Senator Colin Kenny, a former chairman of the Senate Defence & Security Committee quoted in a Halifax paper saying the 'arctic patrol vessels are "sort of silly .. just a dumb idea .. they don't break ice and they're slower than a fishing boat".' 'Slush-breakers', as described in the paper. We note, too, that this is not the first report which has slammed the program. What would the cost to the taxpayer be if the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship program was cancelled as a result of the Senate's recommendation? In recalling that the government of Canada paid Irving Shipbuilding $55m to close St John Shipyard - would the government be required to pay anything to Irving this time if the current shipbuilding contracts were cancelled at Halifax Shipyard?

* How much money has Irving Shipbuilding received to date from the Nova Scotia government ? As of 5 years ago, it was over $300 million, according to the CBC. But now, a half-decade later, what is the actual total ? And why is this necessary when you and your family are reportedly one of the wealthiest in the country?

* Why did you have to take 4 years to build a new shipbuilding facility? Were you unable to build AOPS without a new facility?

* What is the ownership structure of Irving Shipbuilding? A recent news report in the National Observer ('Are the Irvings Canada's biggest corporate welfare bums?') states that "Statistics Canada lists nearly a dozen Bermuda-based Irving companies". Are the owners of Irving Shipbuilding using Bermuda as an offshore tax haven? If so, why ? If not, can you confirm ?

* We understand that these shipbuilding contracts are paid on a cost-plus-profit basis. Does this incentivize Irving Shipbuilding to spend as much as possible? What is the profit margin that you have negotiated with Canada for the AOPS? Was this negotiated with (former ADM Material) Tom Ring who signed the sole-source prime contract with Irving Shipbuilding for the $25bn Canadian Surface Combatant program the day before he retired? And what to make of this report in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald where it says "Up to 15" ships have been promised, but the previous Conservative government suggested as few as 11 might be built because of escalating costs. The report points out that $26.2 billion was pledged but the current government has not confirmed how many will be built." In other words, if the higher the costs (your private jet travel too ?) and the lesser the number of ships, what mechanism is in place to ensure Canada gets as many much-needed ships as possible?

Continue Reading at Source