Progressive Tory Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Do you think they use trucks, or knives more often? The Canadian made knives (Grumman, I think) are said the be some of the best in the world. More expensive but better quality They now get calls from soldiers complaining because they no longer stand up like they used to, and are constantly having to be replaced. The company tells them that if their name isn't on it, it's not theirs. They look exactly the same and I wonder if the NS knife company would have grounds for a lawsuit. It's their reputation being dragged in the mud. They did publish a disclaimer. Trucks and knives for our military should come from our companies. Edited February 10, 2009 by Progressive Tory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 There has always been a political consideration with military procurement. Doesn't work well for them and it probably won't work well for Canadians in general. Citation please? There have been plenty out of country purchase which sucked too. Know why? It is cause he buy stuff for right now. We were in peace keeping in the former block so we bought for that but then we were all of a sudden in Afghanistan. Different region and in a few years maybe we will be helping out in South America. In the end it is still the Devil you know vs the one you don't. Buy Canadian is not a way to make it so our soldiers are ill equipped it is a way to make sure our government has our best interest mind for now as well as the future. An extra million or billion could go long way to the budget now but it is drain on our GDP in the future once those dollars leave they aren't coming back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Citation please? There have been plenty out of country purchase which sucked too. Know why? It is cause he buy stuff for right now. We were in peace keeping in the former block so we bought for that but then we were all of a sudden in Afghanistan. Different region and in a few years maybe we will be helping out in South America. In the end it is still the Devil you know vs the one you don't. Buy Canadian is not a way to make it so our soldiers are ill equipped it is a way to make sure our government has our best interest mind for now as well as the future. An extra million or billion could go long way to the budget now but it is drain on our GDP in the future once those dollars leave they aren't coming back. Try this one.... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=392507 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Try this one....http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=392507 And as I have said when we buy outside Canada we still have these problems. The Sperwer being a good example of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Citation please? The policy... http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-p...r/index-eng.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Army Guy... Why can the American Military receive quality products from Canadian Manufacturers, but the Canadian Army Cannot??? Many of the most successful manufacturers in Canada make military products. And these enterprises are doing very very very very very well amidst this meltdown. So what gives??? Canadian manufactures for the most part build componets, ie hardware, soft ware, nuts and bolts....there is not much Made in Canada , military equipment on the market, even the most sucessful equipment like the LAV III is built in Canada but owned by GM, a US company, that may or may not move it's plant on a whim....Our governments just do not support or put in large amounts of tax payers dollars to support any military industry....perfect example of this is ship building....Irvings ship yards have grown smaller, when was the last time they built a navy ship of any type....hell we can't even find a builder for a much needed AOR ship, which is basically a tanker, with hoses.... I guess the reason the US can do it is they are willing to pay for what they recieve, and our tax payer is not...perfect example is the LSVW, i'm sure that western star could have came up with a design , much better than the italian one...but the R&D funding was not there and we got what we paid for junk....but like i said there is tones of examples out there of Canadian made gone bad, or has gone to extremes to boost the price to increase company profits.... MLVW leaf springs, where made in the US, then disassemble sent to Canada, to be assemble by Canadians for serveral reasons, one so it could have a red maple leaf sticker on the door saying made in Canada, another to pad someones pocket.... other reasons is we don't order enough for anyone to make a large enough profit, this new truck contract is for only 1600 vehs...which is really only 2 or 3 years work max ....the military wants it product as fast as it can get it, often paying bonus for early delivery....to put that in perspect US Military orders 10 to 20 times that....keeping a company healthy for 10 or more years....look at the Humvee project... There is thousands of projects under way right here in Canada, like boots for instance we order 30 to 40 thousand pair, thinking it will be enough, the company retools gets 2 or 3 years work, then what, it retools and produces something else....mean while DND comes to the conclusion that hey we needed 30 to 40 thousand more....and while we wait for a new contract to be drawn up, our orginal supply has dried up and soldiers go with out....we have gathered a reputation amoung'st Canadian companies for being tight wads, and doing everything on the cheap....while the US orders a million boots on each contract keeping the bussiness viable for many years in the future....Add that to the fact we keep everything well past it's life expectancy... I read somewhere in an airforce mag that the CF-18 has a life expectancy of only 8000 flying hours, we bought them in 1982, well over 25 years old, the US does not operate any of these type, in fact they are already into the E and F models, thats 6 times removed or improved from the orginal...and our government plans to keep them flying until atleast 2017....now if an airliner told you your plane is over 30 years old would you fly in it....now our government is telling us not only will we fly in it, but take it into combat and stress it out well past the orginal specs.... Everything we own we keep well past 20 years, nothing that will sustain an industry, unlike the US that replaces everything in a timely basis and it sustains it's industry...all a cost to thier tax payers....something Canadians don't like, spending tax dollars or investing it in thier military, or sustaining industry.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Serveral things wrong with this statement, one, those layoff's were planned well before the contract was put out, so the government decission has nothing to do with the lay offs....second this very company did not even bid on the contract, in fact no Canadian company did...Third the contract has specifically call for an already proven veh, in service with a NATO that have over 2 mil kms on the design.. As military contracts go south, so does economy Chatham Navistar workers likely not only Canadians bypassed for defence work worth $25B "A little more than two years after the Harper government launched the largest re-equipment program for the military since the Second World War, the country's defence and aerospace firms say they are still waiting for many of the promised economic benefits to come their way. Those concerns are only expected to grow as more multi-billion-dollar military equipment programs wait in the wings as part of government's economic stimulus package." Canadian Auto Workers union lobbies for military contracts "The reactionary character of the CAW's "Buy Canadian" campaign is underscored by its recent appeals to the federal Conservative government to speed up military procurement and ensure that new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces be built in Canada." Scathing Report Shows Rampant Conservative Sole-Sourcing of Military Contracts "According to CCPA’s report released today, a detailed analysis of the contract history database reveals that almost half – 41 per cent – of the federal contracts awarded through the Department of National Defence in the 2006-07 fiscal year were “non-competitive,” meaning they were doled out without going through the usual tendering process." How can they compete for contracts that are never up for competition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 And as I have said when we buy outside Canada we still have these problems. The Sperwer being a good example of this. No this is a good example of what buying a few, samples of a product, limited training, limited parts, inexperiance crew....will get you...proving that buying on the cheap does not work, Cash and price always dictates most of our purchases....it was a cheap system and we got our money's worth...and in the end what did we buy, one of the expensive versions....only we made the same mistake and did not buy not enough of them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 After reading 3 pages of posts I'm a bit surprised that so far there are 2 points that I thought obvious that no one mentioned.The first is, it's all very well to "Buy Domestic" but how do you get around the idea that "If you won't buy my stuff why should I buy yours?" Trade is a 2 way street. One of the problems many Canadian manufacturers have complained about for years is that countries like Japan and China cheerfully sell their stuff here but put up barriers to receiving imports from Canada. If we favour our own local stuff too much then why would we expect our export situation to get any better? The other point is that we don't seem to pay attention to whether trade is a level playing field or not. For instance, Canadian steel has to abide by anti-pollution laws that add to the end price per ton of steel. China and Russia appear to have no anti-pollution laws at all. So they automatically have a price advantage over our domestic makers. Shouldn't we impose "green" tariffs equal to the extra costs we impose on our own industries? Why is it ok for OTHER countries to pollute the earth? Of course not, what kind of communist clap-trap have you been listening too? Obviously what we need to do is lower our standards too so we can compete. Seriously though I still think raising our democractic standards are what we really need to do. The only way to insulate our economy from the substandard practices of other nations is to release the other invisible hand that's been tied behind our backs. This notion that trading with substandard nations will result in their becoming freer and more democratic has clearly backfired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 there is no place for unions in today's Canada, they are far more of a liability to prosperity than an asset. We need unions and good union jobs. They are already making concessions. They are not a liability to prosperity, but an asset. Good wage earners spend, they pay high income tax rates and do not impose a drain on social services. Pull out all the union jobs and watch our treasury evaporate. This really would create an economic social Darwinism. And no I'm not a Godless Socialist. Just a realist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 No this is a good example of what buying a few, samples of a product, limited training, limited parts, inexperiance crew....will get you...proving that buying on the cheap does not work, Cash and price always dictates most of our purchases....it was a cheap system and we got our money's worth...and in the end what did we buy, one of the expensive versions....only we made the same mistake and did not buy not enough of them.... That is the only reason to buy outside the country though it is cheep. Look back over the thread many replies "You think my tax dollars should go to a more expensive Canadian product?" I agree it was a cheep poor buy. That is my point if we can get something of equal quality for more in Canada we should, if it is a shitty product we should be able to say just that and buy elsewhere. That is the whole spirit of the Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 If you buy Canadian it had better be food shelter or clothing etc..Things that we really need - to buy a "Canadian" video game is a waste of money...but seeing we don't make them that is not a worry. Canada must be realistic and create and keep creating practical goods - Look at what we import from China that is sold at that barn stall called Walmart - JUNK - tools of soft metal - scissors that can not cut - knifes and spoons made of the worst metalugial horror show imaginable...food tained with lead - plastic --- all the stuff goes into a landfill sight in a year - to hell with China - and as for America - if they have useful pragmatic product - we should buy it and vise versa. If they act as middle men importers of garbage...the heck with the junk. Give me something real for Gods' sake - no more illusionary over packaged and over advertized product - no more...Please... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 WB,Green tariffs are fine, but they don't actually clean the planet, they just provide government some revenue, dont' they ? Also - others mentioned trade wars on this thread, which I believe addresses your 'Why should I buy your stuff' point. eyeball, Protectionism isn't any guarantee of environmental or human rights. These things happen as a result of engaging with other countries. Of course, you're right that other countries have worse records than us in some of these areas but we're not clean either. Generally, it's better to be involved with other countries. As someone who works in resources, I would think you would want less barriers to your products. Absolutely, but generally, I think it's better to be involved with other people. Its usually their governments that lower a countries standards not the people. This is why I keep coming back to accountability and transparency and democracy time and time and time again. The lack of these things are ultimately the root cause of every barrier to progress we see everywhere we look around the planet. These are the only things that will ever guarantee environmental or human rights just as these will be the only things that ever sustain our global economy. Demorcatic stimulus is what the planet really needs, stimulating the economy alone is just a temporary make work project, and it'll probably be a short one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Green tariffs are a useless feel good fraud. Look at Mayor Miller of Toronto - he put out a contract for PASTIC GARBAGE BINS.....They manufactured over a million of them - each one with the carbon foot print of a Boeing 747 ---- real green eh? You can recycle and contain the garbage in Millers new fancey bins that someone got real rich from....but it will take a hundred years to catch up though recyling to repair the environmental and finacial damage caused by the manufacture of the bins...there is no such thing as green - Green is the new Red - communism with a lavish living elite running the fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 How can they compete for contracts that are never up for competition? Good question one that proves my piont, if our military needs an aircraft the size of a C-17, already in production, which Canadian company can build them....right now....Same as the C-130J contract, or hey even the CH-47F all contracts mentioned in your links Who builds them in Canada.... In a perfect world i'd say buy Canadain if that product is the best in the market, but really there is more here than a few tax dollars and jobs it's lives of our soldiers...which i think should come first, call me old fashion, So we have not in the past made it a priorty to invest in our military industry, be it good times or bad.... Now that the economy is tanking all of sudden a contract worth 275 mil is going to save the auto workers...workers that where subject to a plant closing do to cost cutting measures put in place by whom....the same people who never even bid on the contract in the first place. which is whewre our attention should be focused.... Not some fancy reports quoting how much money we are spending down south, when our industries here in Canada do not have the capability to produce the equipment we are looking for....some how that is the governments fault how ? And come on now Denis Coderre he is your military critic....does he have a back ground in the military, has he served, has he studied military history, has he even served with the cadets....but he is qualified to comment on military matters....much in the same way i could comment on pig farming.... How much did the liberals spend on our military industry ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) I agree it was a cheep poor buy. That is my point if we can get something of equal quality for more in Canada we should, if it is a shitty product we should be able to say just that and buy elsewhere. That is the whole spirit of the Law. I disagree with you because the sperwer was a good purchase for the amount of funds we wanted to spend... Edited February 10, 2009 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 These liberal comments about the military are not expert. Look what happened when Bush and Cheney got rid of the high ranking career soldiers out of sheer class contempt. These corporates really thought in regards to Iraq - "Fighting a war...how hard can it be - we are smarter than the spawns of the lowly blue collar set that comprise our military" - so off they went into Iraq like it was a video game or some violent hostile corporate take over - You must RESPECT your marshall class - they are experienced soldiers and political are not! Let a seniour officer with experience advise on these matters and let the corporate poitical be still and learn - and shut his mouth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Green tariffs are a useless feel good fraud. How about democracy tarriffs? We should penalize imports from other countries that have lower democratic standards and we should use that money to enhance ours. This way we can start a race to the top and take the lead right off the bat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 These liberal comments about the military are not expert. Look what happened when Bush and Cheney got rid of the high ranking career soldiers out of sheer class contempt. These corporates really thought in regards to Iraq - "Fighting a war...how hard can it be - we are smarter than the spawns of the lowly blue collar set that comprise our military" - so off they went into Iraq like it was a video game or some violent hostile corporate take over - You must RESPECT your marshall class - they are experienced soldiers and political are not! Let a seniour officer with experience advise on these matters and let the corporate poitical be still and learn - and shut his mouth... This really doesn't have much to do with what anyone is talking about. It's MARTIAL class btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjre Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 I don't think it's a good idea. We generally export more than we import and a "Buy Canadian" clause sends the wrong message to our trading partners. I think import duties from China, Japan etc might be a really good idea but a "Buy Canadian" stimulus package is a short term solution that will make all of the infrastructure more expensive. It would ultimately cost the tax payers and only prolong long term competitive problems these unions have. China poised to be world’s largest auto market Slump in U.S. sales has make country catch up quicker than anticipated http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29022484 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 "OTTAWA — Two major unions are demanding that governments adopt a “Buy Canadian” policy to save jobs. The Canadian Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers say tax dollars spent on infrastructure projects should go to Canadian workers.The call comes after the federal government lobbied hard against efforts in Washington to attach a “Buy American” policy to a multibillion-dollar bailout program." Should Canada also adopt protectionism for government stimulus? Farming out jobs won't help anyone. Well sounds good - if you work for the union being protected. Otherwise, it's really not so good, unless used as a bargaining chip. Here's an example: Let's say that Canadians can buy plastic water bottles for $1.50 with international trade because they come from Bangladesh. Let's say that the plastic water bottles trade union lobbies the government for protectionist measures and they get them. What happens? Well, we now have a hundred union workers who get a decent wage to produce plastic water bottles. We also have 30 million Canadians who now have to pay $10 for a water bottle, as they have no other choices. We also have the people who used to produce these water bottles becoming unemployed. In addition, we are going against free trade, meaning there might be some reciprocal action such as Canada not being able to sell telephony equipment. So, essentially we are looking at wealth distribution. Ensure that consumers have no choice. Then force them to pay exorbitant prices for these goods, or do without. Now, I don't mind wealth distribution, but let's at least make sure it's efficient and doesn't ruin trading deals. Rather than do that, why don't we just collect fifty cents in taxes from every Canadian and give it to those that need it? It makes more sense than 'creating jobs' by handing over a monopoly to a Canadian company so that they can charge consumers whatever they like. Creating trade barriers to protect industries allows those industries to collect a disproportionate amount from the consumers of Canada for the goods and services that they provide at the expense of the Canadian consumer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 How about democracy tarriffs? We should penalize imports from other countries that have lower democratic standards and we should use that money to enhance ours. This way we can start a race to the top and take the lead right off the bat. And who is going to judge the democracies? Is the United States a democracy with the level of corruption, the ability to substantially influence policy with campaign contributions, the fiasco in Florida, the pathetic first-past-the post system? Is Cuba a democracy? They seem to think so? What about the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Who wants to be the judge? Will it be the US funded National Endowment for Democracy or the US funded Freedom House? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The small town mirco economy might not be so bad after all. If we spend 10 dollars for a plastic water bottle - someone gets the 10 bucks and they can spend in on a 11 dollar potatoe...and all will be happy. I do see where protectionism has it's faults. Usually it's the established buisness guy who does not like it - He would rather import the bottles for 2 cents and sell them for two dollars - making himself rich and to hell with Joe down the block or his brother Bill on welfare because ---- Mr. Big shot only cares about himself - not his domestic cousins and certainly not the third world bottle makers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 We need unions and good union jobs. ...... Pull out all the union jobs and watch our treasury evaporate. This really would create an economic social Darwinism. Well, i am pretty socialist, and I don't see where the unions are helping the economy. Getting rid of all unions would not mean that all of these jobs would evaporate -- it would probably mean forcing currently-unionized employees to accept industry-standard wages and benefits. It would certainly mean losing some jobs, and that GM employees (for example) would make less money. It would also make Canadian and US car companies much more competitive with Toyota et al. I believe strongly that somewhere inside the bloated carcass of GM there is a viable car company who can do more than just make pretty cars. Getting rid of the unions would be similar to what a lot of good companies (and workforces) have chosen to do in hard times: take paycuts and reduced hours to keep the company alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Green tariffs are fine, but they don't actually clean the planet, they just provide government some revenue, dont' they ?Of course, you're right that other countries have worse records than us in some of these areas but we're not clean either. Generally, it's better to be involved with other countries. As someone who works in resources, I would think you would want less barriers to your products. Just give the government some revenue? Depends on how they're applied, I would think. If we had some damfool politicians impose a green tariff on a country simply for not supporting Kyoto then that would be something murky and political. Public and international support would become a dog's breakfast. I'm talking about simple unfair competition. A Canadian steel producer has certain costs that limit his ability to compete. If we have imposed laws upon him that force him to spend extra dollars to produce his product then he can only lower his price so far. Below that and he loses money. He's no longer in the game. These "green" costs are not trivial. They can add up to more than the actual profit on the end product! Why do you think that China and Russia are in absolutely no hurry to enact and ENFORCE anti-pollution laws? They COUNT on that competitive edge! A green tariff specifically and only applied to such countries and only in the amount of what it costs our players to produce should not simply end up in the government's coffers. Why would it? There is a natural patriotism to favour domestic sources. The problem is when the domestic sources have such a higher price that one just can't justify paying it. If the pricing was level then a tie would likely go to the domestic source. In many cases there might be no tie and the domestic price would be more competitive. We have some strange idea in North America that if something is out of sight and mind then it isn't happening or is not a danger, like Toronto refusing to deal with its own waste and shipping it by hundreds of truckloads daily to sites in Michigan, while turning down solutions closer and more "in the open" like that of Kirkland Lake. We INSIST that our steel plants be cleaner and totally ignore what happened with imports. We ban lead in paint on children's toys and then allow countries like China to swallow up virtually the entire market. We never bother to inspect what they ship us and then act surprised when we find out our children have been sucking on lead! Only once the problem becomes public does anyone care or any government protection agency get involved. We're so flippin' naive we accept inspection of such issues from the SOURCE as gospel! If it has an inspection stamp from the originating country we accept that as sufficient to allow it to be sold in Canada. We deserve what we get, I guess. We used to have the silliness of unilateral disarmament supporters. Now we have the silliness of unilateral "greens". Edited February 10, 2009 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.