Unions Call for 'Buy Canadian' Policy

Peter F · February 12, 2009

How are they different?
What is the difference if the government spends your money on your behalf, or if you spend the money yourself? More importantly, why would you want to restrict purchases?

If I spend your money on your behalf is that any different than spending my money on my behalf? Would you have any cause for concern with how and for what I am spending your money? How about if I am spending my own money?

Are you seriously suggesting that both cases are the same? That since you have little or no concern about how I spend my money you should show the same concern with how I spend your money?

bjre · February 12, 2009

When the government spends my tax dollars, it's mine and everyone's business to ensure those dollars get spent the most efficiently. In other words, high priced union crackpots are told to go piss up a rope.

I don't think government can always spend tax dollars efficiently. I think tax can be waste in many places.

I have heard a story: a police officer goes to a house and wait for half an hour just to tell the person in the house that his dog barked 10 minutes earlier and some neighbor has called.

Another example is what I saw, some fire fighters drive with alarm light flashed in crowded King st west near University Street (Toronto) in rush hour just for pour some water to a tree.

And there are other examples:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...ildrensaid.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...ntario-cas.html

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry392129

Edited February 12, 2009 by bjre

Progressive Tory · February 12, 2009

China poised to be world’s largest auto market

China is definitely on it's way to making it's place it's the so-called 'New World Order'. The U.S. owes China one trillion dollar. They better hope they don't call in the loan.

Michael Hardner · February 12, 2009

P. Tory,

One of the things that you need to realize is that a lot of what is called 'China' in these arguments, means China-based industries. Now, ask yourself how many of these are American owned and you will see that the deficit isn't what it appears to be.

Wild Bill · February 12, 2009

For the good of the nation, Unions should disband, high price labor is killing the manufacturing sector.

Not always. lMy own experience was with the electronics manufacturing sector. So much of the assembly was done by robots that the extra labour costs were pretty well swamped out. Yet most of that industry fled the country over the last 10 years.

Why? There are other things than labour that determine costs. Taxes, for one. Dollar difference, for another. China has a ridiculously low currency which it has steadfastly refused to adjust or to allow to float. Why would they? It gives them a tremendous competitive advantage.

So a North American company that is profitable can become even MORE profitable by moving their production to China to take advantage of the currency difference, even if labour costs are not a factor!

I find it ironic that domestic CEOs, while understanding that if domestic customers have no jobs they cannot buy their products, seem to pin their hopes on supplying China's consumer market. This is naive in the extreme. China has demonstrated repeatedly that it has absolutely no intention of allowing equal access to its own consumers.

What has and will happened is that North American companies are finding themselves slowly becoming China based, with Chinese executives acquiring the reins of power. There is still a Mattel but it may be in essence "Mattel of China", with American execs phased out of their jobs.

punked · February 12, 2009

In your private life, should you be forced to buy only Canadian made products?
Why should government purchasers be forced to "buy Canadian" while you are free to buy from foreigners? What makes a government purchase different from a private purchase?

If you think the federal government should follow a "Buy Canadian" policy, then we should logically force all Canadians to only "Buy Canadian" too.

Because it says we can in trade agreements.

August1991 · February 12, 2009

Deleted.

Edited February 12, 2009 by August1991

August1991 · February 12, 2009

If I spend your money on your behalf is that any different than spending my money on my behalf? Would you have any cause for concern with how and for what I am spending your money? How about if I am spending my own money?
Are you seriously suggesting that both cases are the same? That since you have little or no concern about how I spend my money you should show the same concern with how I spend your money?

PeterF, I am making the point that if you accept that you should be free to spend your own money in Canada or in Florida, then the government should equally be free to spend our money on our behalf in Canada or abroad. The sole criteria should be value for money spent.

It is protectionist when we start to force individuals (or the government) to spend their money in Canada (or a so called Buy Canadian policy).

Because it says we can in trade agreements.

Punked, you have stated this elsewhere and it is false. Some trade agreements allow some governments to discriminate between domestic and foreign suppliers but usually with special conditions attached.

In any case, who cares what the trade agreement says. As taxpayers, it is not in our interest if the Canadian government pursues a Buy Canadian policy. No one will object (except a few domestic lobby groups) if the government simply buys teh best product at the best price whatever its origin.

If a Toyota Camry is the best car at the negotiated price for a municipal police force, then that's the car they should buy.

punked · February 12, 2009

Punked, you have stated this elsewhere and it is false. Some trade agreements allow some governments to discriminate between domestic and foreign suppliers but usually with special conditions attached.
In any case, who cares what the trade agreement says. As taxpayers, it is not in our interest if the Canadian government pursues a Buy Canadian policy. No one will object (except a few domestic lobby groups) if the government simply buys teh best product at the best price whatever its origin.

If a Toyota Camry is the best car at the negotiated price for a municipal police force, then that's the car they should buy.

This is just not true All trade agreements Canada is in say our government can buy Local products regardless of other countries. We weren't the ones who fought for it in most cases it was the other countries. This is why most countries have these laws except us.

See the problem is you are thinking short term. Over the long run spending in Canada only helps the government when buying for itself. I am for free trade for companies and people. I am for the government looking for the best product (not the cheapest) and if it can be made in Canada for a little more they should go for it.

Progressive Tory · February 12, 2009

P. Tory,
One of the things that you need to realize is that a lot of what is called 'China' in these arguments, means China-based industries. Now, ask yourself how many of these are American owned and you will see that the deficit isn't what it appears to be.

You are probably right. However, for unique stimulus packages, the priority should be jobs. I don't care if the companies are China-based or American-based or Canadian-based. I only care about the Canadian employees of those companies.

Most government revenue comes from taxes. Unemployment means loss of income tax. Unemployment means reduced buying power which in turn reduces sales tax. Unemployment results in more unemployment.

How exactly is giving a contract to a Texas firm to build trucks for our military going to help Canadians, especially when it means the loss of Canadian jobs?

When buying any material for infastructure spending we must look first to Canadian suppliers, and only shop elsewhere if the materials are not available here. Cost should not be a factor because we get it back on the other end in the form of tax revenue and a content public.

Edited February 12, 2009 by Progressive Tory

August1991 · February 12, 2009

This is just not true All trade agreements Canada is in say our government can buy Local products regardless of other countries. We weren't the ones who fought for it in most cases it was the other countries. This is why most countries have these laws except us.

It depends on the agreement, which level of government and what product or service.

You can't make the blanket statement that all trade agreements allow all governments to favour domestic suppliers over foreign suppliers.

See the problem is you are thinking short term. Over the long run spending in Canada only helps the government when buying for itself. I am for free trade for companies and people. I am for the government looking for the best product (not the cheapest) and if it can be made in Canada for a little more they should go for it.

I fail to see what short term or long term has to do with this.

If you accept that private individuals and private firms should be free to choose where to source their purchases, then why would you make a distinction for government purchases? If I do my own grocery shopping, or I hire you to do it on my behalf, it's still my grocery shopping.

Incidentally, here is a good article on free trade:

Gupta and many other Indian business people I spoke to this week were trying to make a point that sometimes non-Americans can make best: “Dear America, please remember how you got to be the wealthiest country in history. It wasn’t through protectionism, or state-owned banks or fearing free trade. No, the formula was very simple: build this really flexible, really open economy, tolerate creative destruction so dead capital is quickly redeployed to better ideas and companies, pour into it the most diverse, smart and energetic immigrants from every corner of the world and then stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat, stir and repeat.”

NYT Edited February 12, 2009 by August1991

August1991 · February 12, 2009

You are probably right. However, for unique stimulus packages, the priority should be jobs. I don't care if the companies are China-based or American-based or Canadian-based. I only care about the Canadian employees of those companies.

If the priority were jobs, then the government should simply hire more tax collectors and pay them with the money raised from the taxes.

Having more tax collectors would reduce unemployment but would it make Canada better off?

PT, the priority is not jobs, nor should it be.

In any case, Canada's unemployment rate is still relatively low and even pessimistic forecasts are in single digits.

When buying any material for infastructure spending we must look first to Canadian suppliers, and only shop elsewhere if the materials are not available here. Cost should not be a factor because we get it back on the other end in the form of tax revenue and a content public.

By that logic, we should force all Canadians to do as you say in their private purchases too. According to you, we could create many jobs in Canada if all Canadians were forced to buy only Canadian products and services and always spend their money only in Canada. PT, do you really believe that? I suggest that you open that economics textbook again. Edited February 12, 2009 by August1991

GostHacked · February 12, 2009

If the priority were jobs, then the government should simply hire more tax collectors and pay them with the money raised from the taxes.
Having more tax collectors would reduce unemployment but would it make Canada better off?

Then you need more people in the workforce to pay for this wasteful bureaucratic government. You need more non-government people paying taxes for the smaller government. If you increase the size of government and reduce the overall workforce of the nation, then you run into a problem. Not enough taxes being generated to pay for this problem.

PT, the priority is not jobs, nor should it be.

No job, can't pay taxes, you get on the welfare you now are a drain on those actually still in jobs, now they are paying for your low priority of a job. Jobs are the top priority. Jobs generate taxes for the government. So yes it is priority.

In any case, Canada's unemployment rate is still relatively low and even pessimistic forecasts are in single digits.
By that logic, we should force all Canadians to do as you say in their private purchases too. According to you, we could create many jobs in Canada if all Canadians were forced to buy only Canadian products and services and always spend their money only in Canada. PT, do you really believe that? I suggest that you open that economics textbook again.

The more money you pump/keep into a local economy the stronger it gets. If everyone buys local, and if top stuff is available local, then go for it. As a nation it can make us more self reliant and can weather economic storms easier because we do not need to depend on those specific imports.

Jobs are important, and local jobs is the key. We can look at how companies outsource stuff .. several US companies outsourced to Canada, because our dollar was low, the companies saw a larger profit margin. Now those same jobs have been moved to the Caribbean. Our dollar went up, and it was not as profitable. So the jobs were moved.

Tell me how that benefits the local economy? If jobs are not important, then why do you work? Why does anyone work?

punked · February 12, 2009

It depends on the agreement, which level of government and what product or service.
You can't make the blanket statement that all trade agreements allow all governments to favour domestic suppliers over foreign suppliers.

I agree however at the Federal level I can make that blanket statement becuase it is true.

August1991 · February 12, 2009

The more money you pump/keep into a local economy the stronger it gets.

WTF? If we followed that advice, we would have an economy as dynamic as North Korea or Burma.

Then you need more people in the workforce to pay for this wasteful bureaucratic government. You need more non-government people paying taxes for the smaller government. If you increase the size of government and reduce the overall workforce of the nation, then you run into a problem. Not enough taxes being generated to pay for this problem.
...

Tell me how that benefits the local economy? If jobs are not important, then why do you work? Why does anyone work?

Now you get the point gosthacked. We don't need jobs in general. We need good jobs that create or add value.

Simply hiring someone to dig holes in the ground may create a job but it won't add value and make Canada a better country or improve our economy. Creating or adding value is more difficult than simply having the government adopt a "stimulus package" to create "jobs".

I agree however at the Federal level I can make that blanket statement becuase it is true.

It's not even true at the federal level:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the first international trade agreement signed by Canada to cover services, including construction-related services. In opening up the Mexican, U.S. and Canadian government service markets to each other's suppliers, NAFTA ensures equal treatment to all North American businesses.
Service contracts worth $76,500 or more and construction contracts estimated at $9.9 million or more are covered by NAFTA when the purchases are made for government departments.

For Crown corporations, NAFTA kicks in when service contracts are worth $382,800 or more and the estimated value of construction contracts is $12.2 million, or greater.

Gov of Cda web site

The issue is more complicated than you pretend.

Edited February 12, 2009 by August1991

Smallc · February 12, 2009

Simply hiring someone to dig holes in the ground may create a job but it won't add value and make Canada a better country or improve our economy.

I am so tired of seeing you type that. No one is proposing such a thing. No one ever was. Infrastructure projects do for the most part make Canada a better country whether you see their value of not.

August1991 · February 12, 2009

I am so tired of seeing you type that. No one is proposing such a thing. No one ever was. Infrastructure projects do for the most part make Canada a better country whether you see their value of not.

Creating or adding value is a difficult to do; it's much easier to destroy value.

Smallc, I am not a libertarian and I'm not against government. In a civilized society, governments provide many essential services that no other institution is capable of providing. I object however to the idea that merely creating jobs, any jobs, is somehow good for the economy.

Job creation is not the priority.

Anybody who has spent even in a few months working in a government office can easily understand the concept. Let me be more direct. If the government hires (unemployed) me at $80,000/year to do some job, I'm certainly happy about the situation and unemployment statistics will improve slightly. But this does not in and of itself improve Canada's economy.

The mere suggestion that we should "Buy Canadian" implies that the whole purpose is to "create jobs". IOW, the purpose is not buy goods and services the government needs but rather the purpose is to dig holes in the ground.

Edited February 12, 2009 by August1991

blueblood · February 12, 2009

If the priority were jobs, then the government should simply hire more tax collectors and pay them with the money raised from the taxes.
Having more tax collectors would reduce unemployment but would it make Canada better off?

PT, the priority is not jobs, nor should it be.

In any case, Canada's unemployment rate is still relatively low and even pessimistic forecasts are in single digits.

By that logic, we should force all Canadians to do as you say in their private purchases too. According to you, we could create many jobs in Canada if all Canadians were forced to buy only Canadian products and services and always spend their money only in Canada. PT, do you really believe that? I suggest that you open that economics textbook again.

I don't mind the gov't subsidizing businesses if the long term result is more cash in my pocket, the economy as a whole improves, our exports improve, and in the long run it results in lower taxes.

What is frustrating is that many central Canadians are fixated on a ridiculously expensive manufacturing sector that cannot compete. The only part of our manufacturing sector that does somewhat well is our high tech industry and even then that carries some risks.

The manufacturing industry has an extremely difficult time in Canada due to the fact of very expensive employment, taxes, and regulations. Not only that, they have to pay wages competitive with that of the energy sector. The energy sector is where it's at, it has made all of our exports more valuable, and has made our society richer as a whole. If Ontarians and Quebecers had a brain in their heads, they would be looking at getting more into this sector than wasting their time trying to compete with cheaper off shore manufacturing.

punked · February 12, 2009

The issue is more complicated than you pretend.

This isn't really what we are talking but I will bite. You can still make all those companies Under Nafta who build in Canada from federal funds BUY CANADIAN.

All you have to do is look at NAFTA you might discover the North American Free Trade Agreement (among other treaties) allows an exemption for procurement contracts to allow only Canadian made products (steal of Nickel, concrete whatever). So yes they can let American companies bide on the contract but stipulate they must use Canadian workers and materials for them. This is what we are talking about, this is what the US does France, and so on.

GostHacked · February 12, 2009

August

Now you get the point gosthacked. We don't need jobs in general. We need good jobs that create or add value.
Simply hiring someone to dig holes in the ground may create a job but it won't add value and make Canada a better country or improve our economy. Creating or adding value is more difficult than simply having the government adopt a "stimulus package" to create "jobs".

Digging a hole can add much value. Like digging a hole to lay the foundation of a building. Digging a hole to get at oil. Digging a hole to take advantage of geo-thermal. Digging a hole to get a subway line in ..

Holes can add a lot of value. Same with filling holes. Potholes are nasty on your vehicle. Not filling that hole can be value taken away from you and your vehicle. Filling that hole keeps the value high.

You just need perspective on what value really means.

blueblood

What is frustrating is that many central Canadians are fixated on a ridiculously expensive manufacturing sector that cannot compete. The only part of our manufacturing sector that does somewhat well is our high tech industry and even then that carries some risks.

It can get to the point where we don't manufacture anything and import everything. We will have no skilled labour at all. Also, I have no problem with buying a local item that can be 5 to 10 times more expensive than the cheap imported product. It just means I won't have to buy that cheap product 5 to 10 times to get the same lifespan out of the item.

I bought an M-Audio midi keyboard last week. Made in China, all plastic, and could be broken within the year from normal use, paid about 100 bucks for it. You get what you pay for. Now the other device ... it was 500 bucks (again made in china) but feels solid and can take a pounding (well except the dynamic touch pad)

Smallc · February 12, 2009

If the government hires (unemployed) me at $80,000/year to do some job, I'm certainly happy about the situation and unemployment statistics will improve slightly. But this does not in and of itself improve Canada's economy..

That's not what the stimulus is trying to do. Its trying to create short term jobs that add overall value to the economy. It's really quite clear. Oh, and I support international trade...I also support the clause that is added to government contracts requiring investment in Canada.

Moonbox · February 12, 2009

You just need perspective on what value really means.

Value is value. If the government is throwing money at manufactorers that have proven they cannot compete and make products nobody wants, you're only giving them money to throw it away. It's the same as the ethanol subsidy. Sure, it keeps farmers employed, but it costs everyone else money and it provides ZERO net benefit to the economy or even really anything worthwhile to the environment.

There's good stimulus and there's welfare stimulus.

It can get to the point where we don't manufacture anything and import everything. We will have no skilled labour at all.

The term 'skilled labor' is often pretty misused. A lot of the 'skilled labor' jobs out there could be performed by monkeys out of highschool with no training. There certainly are skilled labor jobs that require extensive skills, but factory work is not necessarily skilled labor.

Also, I have no problem with buying a local item that can be 5 to 10 times more expensive than the cheap imported product. It just means I won't have to buy that cheap product 5 to 10 times to get the same lifespan out of the item.

Yeah like with American cars over the last 30 years right? North American companies are just as likely to rip us off as foreigners.

GostHacked · February 12, 2009

Value is value.

I agree, but now what kind of value, and what is the overall gain?

I still say it is perspective on what that value means. Are you putting a dollar value to it? Or are you talking about the benefits value that it provides?? What are you talking about when you say something has 'value' and how are you quantifying it? I think this is important.

The term 'skilled labor' is often pretty misused. A lot of the 'skilled labor' jobs out there could be performed by monkeys out of highschool with no training. There certainly are skilled labor jobs that require extensive skills, but factory work is not necessarily skilled labor.

Then those jobs that can be performed by monkeys can't be considered 'skilled labour' now can it? Those can be considered skill teaching jobs. I worked at Burger King and acquired skills from the job. Good and speedy respectful customer service, organizational skills.

Yeah like with American cars over the last 30 years right? North American companies are just as likely to rip us off as foreigners.

For my area 30 year old cars are like dinosaurs, very rare if you see one. In the southern states it could be the norm to see many 30 year old vehicles. Here in Ottawa, not many cars last that long.

eyeball · February 12, 2009

One of the things that you need to realize is that a lot of what is called 'China' in these arguments, means China-based industries. Now, ask yourself how many of these are American owned and you will see that the deficit isn't what it appears to be.

At some point you have to ask yourself what business we have allowing North American companies to exploit the labour force of a country with a totalitarian government that keeps human rights and environmental protection far below the standards we apply here.

Think about this in the context of the Kyoto Accord where it was feared we'd never be able to compete with countries like China because they'd be allowed to pollute more than us. We'd have to wait until they caught up to us we were told. So where are we today? Exactly where Kyoto critics said we'd be, unable to compete with China because our standards are too high.

I really have to shake my head at the idea that Canadians don't need more opportunities to vote or to reform our electoral system. Is it just a coincidence that many of the very same sort of people that would keep our democratic standards locked down also think our environmental and labour standards are too high?

When people in the future ask how we let things deteriorate so badly they need to know that this really is what many perhaps most seemed to want. If the future can learn anything at all from this then they'll be better people than us.

Moonbox · February 12, 2009

I still say it is perspective on what that value means. Are you putting a dollar value to it? Or are you talking about the benefits value that it provides?? What are you talking about when you say something has 'value' and how are you quantifying it? I think this is important.

Value is value, like I said. There's certainly perspective to it, but you can't talk about it in the sense that value = dollar value OR value = benefits it provides. Value is a measure of how much benefit you gained for the price you paid. I don't feel a GM or Chrysler provides value because I know that something like 33% of the cost of the vehicle is directly tied into paying pensions and benefits. I could probably get a similar performance vehicle from a Japanese automaker for 25% less. That's value. I'm actually quite okay with buying shirts made in China, because i know that I save more money buying these imports than I'd ever see if we had our own protected domestic shirt industry and I had to pay twice as much for the same silly shirt.

Then those jobs that can be performed by monkeys can't be considered 'skilled labour' now can it? Those can be considered skill teaching jobs. I worked at Burger King and acquired skills from the job. Good and speedy respectful customer service, organizational skills.

That's fine but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I said that I think the term 'skilled labor' is over-used.

For my area 30 year old cars are like dinosaurs, very rare if you see one. In the southern states it could be the norm to see many 30 year old vehicles. Here in Ottawa, not many cars last that long.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I mentioned US auto-makers because they sold North Americans absolutely garbage vehicles for 30 years until foreigners entered the market. This is one of the best examples of why free trade is great. Now we're not getting ripped off with cars that need repairs every 6 months.