Jack Layton: "Buy Canadian!"

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
Jack Layton: "Buy Canadian!"

Bravo! At last! A fitting rebuke to the "Free Trade" fraud and U.S. blackmail:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/03/layton-trade.html]
Canada should pursue 'Buy Canadian' strategy: Layton[/url]

Quote:

Canada should adopt a "Buy Canadian" strategy in response to the "Buy American" clause included in the proposed U.S. stimulus package, NDP Leader Jack Layton urged Tuesday.

During question period in the House of Commons, Layton said that there's a "golden opportunity" to boost slumping domestic sales with a "perfectly legal and appropriately designed 'Buy Canadian' strategy."

"The United States has had a 'Buy American' act for 76 years," Layton said. "It's perfectly legal under the World Trade Organization, and, in fact, under NAFTA, governments are allowed to buy at home in order to use taxpayers' money to create jobs for workers and to support communities and their industries.

"Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, they all have national procurement policies, and it would be a good idea for Canada. Can the prime minister tell us what's wrong with a 'Buy Canadian' policy as permitted under continental and global trade rules?"

The oil and gas barons' Stephen Harper's answer:

Quote:
"That is not advice that we will be taking," Harper said.

Finally, the NDP has an issue on which it can lead - if it sticks to its guns.

 

Michelle

Excellent!  I've been cheering Barack Obama all the way with his Buy American stuff lately.  And the reason has been because I WELCOME protectionism wars. 

Yes, things won't be quite as cheap as they used to be, but then, you know, I don't think we really NEED 10 pairs of shoes, and bulging closets and all that crap that's destroying the earth anyhow. 

Protectionism, along with strong social programs to help those who are unable to afford the basics, is just what the doctor ordered.

Unionist

I saw the following when it was issued last November, and Jack's statement made me look it up again:

[url=http://www.caw.ca/en/4711.htm]
Canadian Content Rules Do Not Violate Trade Agreements, CAW says[/url]

Quote:

Government concerns that Canadian content requirements for publicly funded purchases violate international trade law are entirely misplaced, CAW National President Ken Lewenza says.

Lewenza made the comments today at a press conference where the union released a comprehensive legal opinion that shows governments have the ability to implement Buy Canadian policies at the municipal, provincial and federal levels.

"For too long we've heard government officials claim they had no authority to enact Buy Canadian legislation as it violated the terms and conditions of our international trade obligations," said Lewenza. "We've now proven this to be completely false and put this debate to rest."

The legal opinion, authored by international trade expert Steven Shrybman of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, indicates that municipal and provincial governments can specify levels of Canadian content for purchases and, where competition exists, restrict the tendering process entirely to goods that are made in Canada.

 

George Victor

Finally, nationalism comes clean.

How very, very refreshing.

But how do we re-instate Waffle a third of a century after its dismissal by the very people now calling out for its ideas?

And, more importantly perhaps, how do we cobble together the people and technology made redundant by the products of sweat shops round the world ?

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

But how do we re-instate Waffle a third of a century after its dismissal by the very people now calling out for its ideas?

History has its own logic. Things turn into their opposites.

Quote:
And, more importantly perhaps, how do we cobble together the people and technology made redundant by the products of sweat shops round the world ?

We could start by saving the about-to-be and the just-recently-made redundant. Then we can aim higher.

George Victor

Right!

Sven Sven's picture

Michelle wrote:

Excellent!  I've been cheering Barack Obama all the way with his Buy American stuff lately.  And the reason has been because I WELCOME protectionism wars.

Late today, the Times is reporting that Obama, in response to an EU uproar, may largely back off from the "Buy American" provisions in the "stimulus" package.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

The U.S. government already has many "Buy American" provisions in place - far more so than we do in Canada.

Unionist

Sven wrote:

Late today, the Times is reporting that Obama, in response to an EU uproar, may largely back off from the "Buy American" provisions in the "stimulus" package.

 

Who gives a f***? This thread is about Canadian policy. We need to invest in our own economy.

LTJ wrote:

The U.S. government already has many "Buy American" provisions in place - far more so than we do in Canada.

Very true. For one example, the "Buy America Act", which was first enacted in 1933, applies to federally-funded transportation projects:

Quote:
The Buy America Act requires, with few exceptions, that all steel, iron and manufactured goods used in FTA-funded projects be produced in the United States. One such exception is that of  on-availability--that in some instances steel, iron, and goods  roduced in the United States are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities or are not of a satisfactory quality.

[url=Source.[/url]">http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/E6-18260.htm][=red]Source.[/colo...

 

NorthReport

I'm curious to know if any of these buy locally projects ever make a dent. People often have difficulty figuring out where things are made a lot of the time. Ask Canadians where the bananas they have with their Kellogg's Corn Flakes for breakfast come from and most probaly don't even know where they are grown or how they get to Canada. Even though we have great weather most of the time I'm pretty sure they don't come from BC. Laughing

I suppose Harper has been lobbying the White House over this.

Obama urges Congress to soften protectionist trade message

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1248975

The main obstacle for Ottawa, however, is the popularity of Buy American among labour groups and free-trade critics who carry significant influence with Democrats.

The Buy American concept also has strong appeal for voters in economically distressed states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are perpetual electoral battlegrounds for Democrats.

"People need to understand their chances of talking the American public out of this kind of attitude are zero," Representative Barney Frank, Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

mybabble

Am I missing something here as the headlines read Obama says willing to take back only buy USA products. Lets say it happened it would be like say 50% of Canada just got cut off from its life supply system.  And its not about buying its about the futures of Canadians and investing in their futures and future generations with solid education as there is nothing better you can do for a country but to ensure not only that its people are both educated and healthy and English speaking doesn't hurt either being it the language of the market place.   Its so important as healthy people don't need much health care, as its a lifestyle with good nutrition and healthily living.  Look at the USA they are having a real problem and Canada in some places is not far behind.  And although Martin may have started the trend of compromising Canadians education and health and their ability to compete globally Harper has done nothing to stop it.  Martin gradually took away funding from what is most vital to Canadians, their education system and health care leaving Canadians unable to compete globally.  And Harper's budget only addressed buying computers and fixing up places along with some schools(good stuff) but more is needed like investing in Canadians and their futures here in Canada by providing a education system to be proud of and one that is recognized for its excellence around the globe and one in reach of the average Canadian as many are unhappy with the high costs associated with education.  Now thats something as all these little events and stuff and speculation well thats good for the moment but at the end of the day as better have more than a few bucks invested in a plot of land as the real bucks need to be in educating a people so they have the skills and abilities to compete globally, now thats something to bank on and no market flucation is going to take it away.  And what about innovation it was barely tossed over if this is the best they could come up with is how to get people shopping well I would think more is required than spending a dime.

A_J

The only reason we would need to embark on a "Buy Canadian" policy is if Canadian goods were otherwise uncompetitive with foreign imports. If Canadian products were cheaper or better, such a clause would be completely unnecessary.

Which then raises the question - why do we want to buy products that are either more expensive or inferior to others that are available?

Look at the situation in the U.S.: The stimulus package is intended in part to build new infrastructure - roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, etc. For this steel, iron and other materials are needed. But, by choosing to buy more expensive or inferior American made products (if they were cheaper or better this clause would be unnecessary), less steel, iron, etc. can be purchased and fewer bridges, tunnels, railways, etc. can be built or upgraded.

Everyone loses - it's obvious that foreign workers, producing a product for export, lose as they are discriminated against simply for not being Americans (or in Layton's case, Canadians).  But people at home also lose as their government spending is unable to do as much as it could.

Unionist

A_J wrote:

Which then raises the question - why do we want to products that are either more expensive or inferior to others that are available?

So that we can work, and earn money, and be able to afford to buy anything in the first place. Of course, for those that don't need to work in order to live, "free trade" and the cheapest possible goods sounds like heaven on earth. That's why it's the humble Canadians, not the high and mighty, who opposed free trade. Strange, isn't it, that we lower classes would oppose cheap high-quality goods? Maybe we've seen through the parlour trick.

A_J

Unionist wrote:
So that we can work, and earn money, and be able to afford to buy anything in the first place.

I imagine Chinese steelworkers have the same aspirations. But I guess it's their own fault for not being Canadian.

They should have tried harder, I suppose.

Unionist

A_J wrote:

Unionist wrote:
So that we can work, and earn money, and be able to afford to buy anything in the first place.

I imagine Chinese steelworkers have the same aspirations. But I guess it's their own fault for not being Canadian.

They should have tried harder, I suppose.

Write to Jack Layton and explain to him that he is showing hostility and lack of empathy toward the wellbeing of Chinese steelworkers' families when he suggests that we should spend our money at home and keep our families employed.

I believe in international solidarity, but my definition doesn't include an international competitive race to the bottom by workers competing against each other to see who can work the hardest and starve the fastest.

Bravo, Jack - don't falter on this one!

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

The Chinese were doing alright until British gun boats arrived and forced them to accept the opium trade. That's right, our colonial forefathers belonged to drug gangs.

Quote:
The Opium War, also called the Anglo-Chinese War, was the most humiliating defeat China ever suffered. In European history, it is perhaps the most sordid, base, and vicious event in European history, possibly, just possibly, overshadowed by the excesses of the Third Reich in the twentieth century.

   By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

The Opium Wars

It always fascinating that the richest people in the world who consume far more than their share and often the share of the liftetimes of entire villages, are always so concerned about alleviating poverty when it comes to trade. What fascinates me more is that otherwise intelligent people still buy that shit.

 

jasonJ2

75% of our trade is with the USA and NO amount of domestic demand will make up for it. So if you want to kill every bloody job in this country keep at it. 

Protectionism between advanced economies of the US, EU, A/NZ, Japan and Korea would be economic suicide. We are to interconnected as no economy makes the entire widget anymore. 

Do not confuse the problems of globalism with trade among advanced economies. Wake up we are not in the 30's anymore 

saga saga's picture

Unionist wrote:
A_J wrote:

Which then raises the question - why do we want to products that are either more expensive or inferior to others that are available?

So that we can work, and earn money, and be able to afford to buy anything in the first place. Of course, for those that don't need to work in order to live, "free trade" and the cheapest possible goods sounds like heaven on earth. That's why it's the humble Canadians, not the high and mighty, who opposed free trade. Strange, isn't it, that we lower classes would oppose cheap high-quality goods? Maybe we've seen through the parlour trick.

I'd like to agree with you Unionist, but I can't. I agree as far as the workers are concerned, but the workers do not run the company and cannot ensure that products are being made that we need. If we keep buying GM's gas guzzlers, they'll never make anything more efficient.

 

 

mybabble

Buy local when you can is the message I'm hearing especially when coming to produce.  Its green.  Also Bravo for budget providing unemployed workers with money for training as great start but still can't figure out what the additional five weeks employment is antiscipated to do for unemployed Canadians and their families are being left without help and thats no good.  Trade policies are clearly meant to be Free Trade around the World and anything less will do little for the Economy or for Global Trade.

Unionist

jasonJ2 wrote:

75% of our trade is with the USA and NO amount of domestic demand will make up for it. So if you want to kill every bloody job in this country keep at it. 

Protectionism between advanced economies of the US, EU, A/NZ, Japan and Korea would be economic suicide. We are to interconnected as no economy makes the entire widget anymore. 

Do not confuse the problems of globalism with trade among advanced economies. Wake up we are not in the 30's anymore 

Good evening.

I'm talking about government stimulus funds being used to fund Canadian projects and maintain and create Canadian jobs.

I am not talking about stopping trade.

As for Japan, Korea, etc., last time I checked they were selling their cars here, while accepting few or no North American made cars in their markets. They clearly understand the vital importance of protecting their domestic economies. C'mon, join the club.

Oh, and I'm not scared of the U.S. If deprived of our resources, they would plunge into anarchy. They should be scared of us. Boo!!!

Unionist

saga wrote:

I'd like to agree with you Unionist, but I can't. I agree as far as the workers are concerned, but the workers do not run the company and cannot ensure that products are being made that we need. If we keep buying GM's gas guzzlers, they'll never make anything more efficient.

Do you agree with me that if we don't produce something or other, we will starve?

mybabble

I don't think  concentrating on providing the cheapest possible labor is the way to go thats a losing propostition as can't compete with China and India so what Canada needs to focus on is having a highly educated and skilled and diverse work force and they will be beating down are doors for Canada's expertise and inovation.  They are already got the door trampled down when it comes to our resources why not the people?

Webgear

Perhaps we produce only items that we really need and focus on the basics necessaries of life,  such clothing, shelter and farm tools.

We do not need unneeded SUVs, large aircraft and other luxury goods.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

mybabble

I think its important to believe in what you do and if there are better products out there it wise to invest in new inovation or get out of the race unless your into that loonie store stuff but then there is only so much plastic that a household can buy without it taking over their space.  This way it is less likely you will have to worry about starving as you have a product or service that is in demand in good times as well as bad. 

mybabble

Webgear wrote:

Perhaps we produce only items that we really need and focus on the basics necessaries of life,  such clothing, shelter and farm tools.

We do not need unneeded SUVs, large aircraft and other luxury goods.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Back to the past for the present and surprisingly enough most of us have plenty of the basics as even the poor find themselves dressed in designers Labels along with other luxury goods that end up in their shopping carts or charity organizations.  However although the economy may be on hold for the moment future inovation is going strong and it will be back to the future for the masses before to long.  And I see great things like advancements in medicine and transportation and why not its not like it hasn't happened before.

Bookish Agrarian

Yes Canadian companies are uncompetative in this new global era.  Why? Because we believe in things like worker saftey, environmental protection, labour standards and so on.  Not enough mind, but we still do.

Food imports come into Canada and are on our shelves that are grown with known and banned carcinogens, which produces cheap food and Canadian farmers are told they are not competative.  Brazil (the great global success story in agriculture according to the global trade crowd) is estimated to have over 20,000 slaves working in just Soya alone (read Raj Patel's Stuffed and Starved). And yet again some wag trots out the Canadians just aren't competative enough routine.  Well if doing these things are what makes us competative than you can keep competative and shove it where the sun don't shine in my books.

Every time we buy some piece of crap product or food because it is cheaper than what is made or grown here we are contributing to poverty and injustice around the world.  Trade is a good and positive thing if done fairly and to try and bring people up to the highest levels and standards.  That is not what we do.  We do as unionist mentioned - we race to the bottom.  In the race to the basement it is workers, where ever they live that lose each and every time.

Thank you Jack Layton for opening up this much needed discussion about what is needed to be done to have real trade that benefits communities and people.

And Jasonj2 you might want to check your facts.  The 2007 figure is 79%, but much of that trade is in non-manufacturing procuts.  In 2006 (the last year figures are available) 10% of that was raw crude.  A further 7% was in refined oil products.  Auto made up a further 10%.  While we have a positive trade balance with the US tis true - if you remove the value of oil and gas, it gets closer to net balance.   Our trade balance with the rest of the world though is net negative suggesting quite strongly we have become over dependent on one market, ignored our own domestic markets and have lagged behind on innovation because of that. 

Also when we ramped up exports under CUSTA and then NAFTA we saw a drop in real terms of the purchasing power of the average wage.  Little of what we produce in Canada in our industrial sector flows to the United States that doesn't also return here through redundent trade- the dirty little secret of global economics.  Your knowledge of trade realities is a little sketchy I am afraid.

A_J

Double Post

A_J

Unionist wrote:
I believe in international solidarity, but my definition doesn't include an international competitive race to the bottom by workers competing against each other to see who can work the hardest and starve the fastest.

No, instead Chinese workers will have to work that much harder and cheaper in order to compete with privileged Canadian producers.

Unionist wrote:
Do you agree with me that if we don't produce something or other, we will starve?

Canada's trade surplus in 2008 was $80 billion.

That's $80 billion worth of "something or others" that this country produced and exported over and above the value of the "something or others" we imported from abroad.  We're not going to starve, not by a long shot. 

Unionist

A_J wrote:

Canada's trade surplus in 2008 was $80 billion.

That's $80 billion worth of "something or others" that this country produced and exported over and above the value of the "something or others" we imported from abroad.  We're not going to starve, not by a long shot. 

"Exported", yes. But "produced"?? That's a term with variable shades of meaning. With natural resources accounting for [url=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/00505/7894-eng.htm]60 percent of exports[/url], and with the most labour-intensive manufacturing sectors suffering plant closures and job losses in the hundreds of thousands, we appear to be doing lots more "exporting" than "producing".

That's precisely the problem that a domestic procurement policy, attached to economic stimulus spending, would help address.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

"Exported", yes. But "produced"?? That's a term with variable shades of meaning. With natural resources accounting for [url=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-010-x/00505/7894-eng.htm]60 percent of exports[/url], and with the most labour-intensive manufacturing sectors suffering plant closures and job losses in the hundreds of thousands, we appear to be doing lots more "exporting" than "producing"

So, we send our precious fossil fuels and raw logs away to be processed in other countries, and they send it back to us as value-added finished products for us to buy while at the same time hemorrhaging jobs? I wonder for how long we can keep that up?

 

George Victor

AJ

Any idea how much of that Canadian surplus comes from the natural gas and oil flowing south? And the other minerals dug from the ground that you say we "produce".  Ever heard the expresson "hewers of wood and drawers of water?" That's been Canada's view of itself ever since the Great Depression.

If you are so taken with math, with  numbers, why not try to discover what percentage of that surplus USED TO come from Ontario's car manufacturing industry. How much now.

WE are not going to starve? 

What fatuous nonsense.

George Victor

Hey BA.

Breakthrough.

Loblaws will not be importing U.S. "Black Angus" beef in a month's time.

My favourite butcher - with whom I have bantered good naturedly for two years now about Loblaws' propensity to import the high-priced suff from south of the border - informed me on the weekend. He wanted to be first to tell me. Not that I can afford the beef from the specialty counter yet.

I know, beef is something one should not eat too much of for enfironmental reasons, but my doughter (and others I know) hod to reluctantly go back to getting their iron and protein from a product on the hoof. Just not too much of it. And lots of whole grains.

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

AJ

Any idea how much of that Canadian surplus comes from the natural gas and oil flowing south? And the other minerals dug from the ground that you say we "produce". 

From my earlier linked report, here was the picture in 2004 when looking at the "value-added" component of exports (i.e. factoring out the imported input into those products):

And from the conclusion:

Quote:
Canada's export base has shifted in recent years from manufactured goods such as autos and machinery and equipment back to its traditional natural resource products, notably energy. The low import content of the booming resource sector is one reason our trade surplus has hit record highs, despite the slowdown in overall export growth after 2000.

NB: The above graph shows the situation before Canada's factories started shutting their doors.

Bookish Agrarian

A_J wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I believe in international solidarity, but my definition doesn't include an international competitive race to the bottom by workers competing against each other to see who can work the hardest and starve the fastest.

No, instead Chinese workers will have to work that much harder and cheaper in order to compete with privileged Canadian producers.

Unionist wrote:
Do you agree with me that if we don't produce something or other, we will starve?

Canada's trade surplus in 2008 was $80 billion.

That's $80 billion worth of "something or others" that this country produced and exported over and above the value of the "something or others" we imported from abroad.  We're not going to starve, not by a long shot. 

 It is amazing you would know the number for 2008 when the full data has not been released yet.  Kreskinesque really.  The trade balance for 2007 according to Industry Canada was about 43 billion.  This included items such as wheat, logs, minerals and so on.  Of the top 25 export industries 46% of all exports came from natural resource extraction.  (Oil and gas extraction of course led the way).  If anything our manufacturing base has been eroding to such a degree that the balance is likely to become more heavily dependent on raw resources in the next few years tipping the balance to more than 50%.  In fact if you take off secondary processing of raw resources (such as pulp) from the manufacture numbers you are already over the 50% threshold.

There is a simple plain fact.  You can not continue to export the wealth producing parts of your economy to other nations with a lower and lower set of standards each time the new 'economic miricle' location moves and expect to be able to sustain things like social spending.  You simply are not doing a Chinese worker a favour by supporting a system that exploits them in conditions that are right out of Dickens

Bookish Agrarian

Hey George

Good to hear.  Black angus stuff is bogus anyway.

I don't eat beef every day either, or even meat for that matter.

 What you and your daughter need to invest in is a good slow cooker.  It turns even the toughest cuts into relatively tender and tastey dishes.  I recomend marinating in a good red wine.  Might not help the taste but the lovely smell will make you think it does.  If you drink the rest of the bottle with the meal you eventually won't give a shit anyway.

George Victor

And the year 2004, U, was when it started to become clear that the loonie was going to turn into a petrodollar and it was only a matter of time before Ontario's industry - with its head offices elsewhere - was going to go uncompetitive, shut down.

Wrote a piece for the local dead tree media to that effect that year.

George Victor

You're my kinda chef!

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

You simply are not doing a Chinese worker a favour by supporting a system that exploits them in conditions that are right out of Dickens

Oh, but don't ya know, the wealth will "trickle down" and they'll all be rich, and we'll feel good for making them so!

Anyway, A_J's concern for the international working class is touching, but it seems to be premised on the thesis that the invisible hand of the free market cures all ills. That's not my perception of the last couple hundred years of history.

But the issue facing us now is not an "ideological" one. The simple question is, should a government that is "artificially" injecting funds into economic activity favour the performance of that activity by Canadian workers, at a time when our manufacturing base is being eroded like never before?

Jack Layton has said "YES", and we must tell him that he is on the right track.

Michelle

A_J wrote:

I imagine Chinese steelworkers have the same aspirations. But I guess it's their own fault for not being Canadian.

They should have tried harder, I suppose.

Well, let's see.  There's a billion of them living there, and I'm sure they can all use some steel and infrastructure at home.  So, they can produce steel for themselves, and we'll produce steel for ourselves.  And we'll maybe trade with some of our neighbours (with good tariffs) for some of the stuff we can't source from home - like bananas or oranges or whatever.

There's no reason why China or any other country with shitty labour laws or "free trade zones" should have any "right" to flood the Canadian market with cheap goods, and there's no reason why Canada shouldn't say that, for the good of our country, we're going to buy from Canadian suppliers for everything that we CAN grow or extract here, and buy from other countries only the stuff we CAN'T grow or extract here.

Fidel

I think A_J could be concerned that Canadians would be in tough for manufacturing our own toilet paper and furniture and plastic shower curtain liners, chainsaws, buses and alarm clocks. And who would supply the witty sentiments for those over-priced Hallmark greeting cards made from old growth Canadian logs? 

How could democratically-elected government in Ottawa possibly manage to create a national energy policy all by themselves without American CEO's dictating it to them?

 YES WE CAN!

A_J

Michelle wrote:
. . . stuff we can't source from home - like bananas or oranges or whatever.
 

Actually, we can grow oranges or bananas here.  It is just very expensive compared to simply importing them from tropical countries (tropical countries that might have shitty labour laws, or grow their produce in "free trade zones")

Similarly, we can manufacture a lot of the goods that are made overseas here as well, but that would also be more expensive than importing them (but you are okay with that, because the extra costs are passed along to other Canadians).

Why the double standard?

Why shouldn't Canadian hot-house orange-growers be given a share of the largess? Tongue out

Unionist

A_J wrote:

Actually, we can grow oranges or bananas here.  It is just very expensive compared to simply importing them from tropical countries (tropical countries that might have shitty labour laws, or grow their produce in "free trade zones").

Yeah, I even know some people who spend precious time and resources cooking meals at home, when they could eat cheaper and faster at McDonald's. Go figure.

Quote:
Similarly, we can manufacture a lot of the goods that are made overseas here as well, but that would also be more expensive than importing them (but you are okay with that, because the extra costs are passed along to other Canadians).

The "extra costs"? You mean, like, the extra good jobs that would be created, the extra tax revenue that would result, and the extra Canadian-made goods and services that these employed Canadians would be able to purchase in Canada?

Yes, I guess I would be "okay with that".

Michelle

Do you know of any Canadian hothouse orange growers? 

I'm not saying that we have to dictate labour policy to everyone we trade with.  That's up to the people in those countries to demand fair working conditions from their governments. 

I'm saying that for stuff we can produce ourselves, we should buy it from ourselves instead of other countries, and for stuff we can't produce ourselves, we should trade for them.  There's no reason why our workers should have to compete with workers in other countries with shitty labour standards. 

NorthReport

Harper & Ignatieff have quite the winning economic policies, but just not sure who is winning here. I'm pretty sure it ain't da workers.

You're doing one heck of a job boys!

More big job losses in store for Canada as firms hunker down

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hoF1gyuhz0q6IQxNW72yCsdGi4xA

 

Buddy Kat

 Good for Jack for sticking up for Canada....It's long been a contentious issue how we sell our resources, just to have another country manufacture a value added product and then sell it back to us. like pasta and mustard. If this gets any steam I would expect the US to do a big back track.

 When it hits there yankee doodle dandy heads that we are the fresh water supplier as well as energy supplier...and buffer zone (the place where missles land so we are the sacrifical goat instead of them)via arctic missle warning bases...and that we actually build all the parts of their f-18's to have the back draft from contract rewarding end up in the hands of political parties in the form of contributions...they will think twice.  But yeh it will take the actions of a real Canadian to make it happen...like Jack is doing.

Oh yeh the US is going to back track bigtime! The last thing they want is Canada to wake up and smell the coffee.Wink

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

Bookish Agrarian

There is not a single hothouse grower of oranges in Canada- nor will there ever be.  Oranges grow on trees.   Large tree production is not conducive to greenhouse growing, so AJ your agrument is full of bananas

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

... so AJ your agrument is full of bananas

I didn't find it very appeeling either.

George Victor

Attempt at strained humour deleted.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

A_J wrote:

Michelle wrote:
. . . stuff we can't source from home - like bananas or oranges or whatever.
 

Actually, we can grow oranges or bananas here.  It is just very expensive compared to simply importing them from tropical countries (tropical countries that might have shitty labour laws, or grow their produce in "free trade zones")

 

This is off-topic but I can't resist. Years ago I used to stay with my gf in Florida, and despite having very productive orange trees in the front and back yards, insisted on buying orange juice every week from the supermarket. Used to drive me crazy!

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

Years ago I used to stay with my gf in Florida, and despite having very productive orange trees in the front and back yards, insisted on buying orange juice every week from the supermarket.

Was it imported from Canada, I hope?

Back on topic everyone, please.

Go, Jack, go!

 

jas

We should always be buying Canadian, whenever we can. It's not easy, though. 

 

Pages

Topic locked