The Shotgun Blog
« Wilkinson on "Canadian freedom" | Main | Al & Mike Show - Episode 54 - Roundtable Edition »
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Shut up CAW
The Canadian Auto Workers and United Steelworkers are both demanding that Canada's government adopt a 'buy Canada policy.' This would be a disaster.
First of all, the Canadian taxpayers will lose value for their dollars. The unions want the various levels of governments to only buy Canadian buses, ships, air crafts, etc. The truth is that Canadian firms don't always make this stuff as well or as cheaply as foreign firms. This policy could cost us billions of extra dollars at a time that we are already running deficits.
Secondly, this would create a trade war. If Canada refuses to deal with foreign firms other countries will refuse to deal with Canadian firms. Canada's industry will lose money.
CAW president Ken Lownza says in response to this, “These arguments are completely false, raised as a smokescreen by those clinging to the rapidly failing ideology of endless free trade and deregulation -- the very ideas that got us in this mess today.”
I find it funny that he calls free trade a failed policy at the same time as proposing a policy that has epically failed throughout history.
The example dearest to the hearts of the manufacturing industry is the Avro Arrow. Contrary to popular belief, it was not closed down because of pressure from the United States. It was shutdown because no one would buy it. The United States and Britain both had their own aerospace industries. And they had a 'buy domestically policy' that prevented them from looking at the Avro Arrow.
This policy has done nothing but harm every time it has been tried and I hope that these union bosses will be ignored by policy makers.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on February 11, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Let the Ontarians starve. They're rich, always have been. It's about time they have some down times.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-11 3:56:24 PM
wow hugh. it is a shame your standard of living isn't as high as you would like it to be, but it's ignorant of you wish starvation on your fellow canadians. as for what the c.a.w. does or doesn't do, at least they are doing something, including championing for the rights of all of the unemployed people who's needs were not addressed in january's budget regardless of their union status.
Posted by: andrew | 2009-02-11 4:29:41 PM
Andrew you missed the point entirely. Because of this policy the workers on the Avro Arrow were laid off. They were the people that suffered from this policy. It hurts all of us but this policy will hurt the poor the most.
Doing something is not a virtue when that action is making things worse. Do you think that people will say, "at least he was doing something," if I kicked a man who was bleeding?
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-02-11 4:36:18 PM
More Union "protectionism" and naturally they want this socialist policy endorsed by government.
And because it's socialist...it probably will be.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-11 4:57:04 PM
I love how the union guy blames free trade. I guess it had nothing to do with insane social legislation (The Community Reinvestment Act 1977) lack of regulatory oversight, avoricious banks and investment houses and people who want housing for nothing. Free trade huh? That damn Mulroney.
Posted by: Brian Mallard | 2009-02-11 6:41:32 PM
Blaming free trade is just scapegoating. The auto workers have never been more prosperous since the FTA came down, and especially so under NAFTA. Everyone has.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-11 6:54:29 PM
Nobody with any knowledge of economics pays any attention to what unions say. Not only do they stubbornly refuse to consider anyone's welfare but their own, but they have an ugly habit of thrusting poison darts into the hand that feeds them. They'd sooner see the company dissolve in bankruptcy than moderate their demands.
For the first time since the 1970s, Canada has posted a trade deficit: We bought more from other nations than we sold. That's a very disturbing development for an export-dependent nation like ours, and igniting a trade war we can only lose would make matters infinitely worse.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-11 6:59:40 PM
Shane, relax. There's a global downturn at the moment. Things will pick up soon. They always do.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-11 7:50:17 PM
I know it, Zeb. But the last time we tried to tariff our way out of a recession, it led to a depression. THE Depression. I'm not eager for this thing to last ten years like that one did. At all costs we mustn't be sucked into that trap again.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-11 8:17:15 PM
It's fair to say that for the rich people of Ontario, nothing will ever be good enough. I thank God - yes, self-worshiping Toronto people, God - that I am not one of them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-11 8:46:05 PM
You'd never know that until pretty recently (the last couple of years) the Canadian auto industry was a net exporter.
Even though that doesn't mean anything realistically, it's what they want, isn't it? And it's what they got through free trade, and what they're losing out on because of protectionism.
Posted by: Janet | 2009-02-11 9:52:40 PM
" Buy Canadian" sounds good but can not work since almost everything in this country , with few exceptions is owned by outside interests. Primarily Americans. Another thing....we have never had free trade. Trade , yes, but free trade, never.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-02-11 10:48:26 PM
It isn't only the price and quality that may be worse in a Canadian-made product, but also selection. With roughly 10,000 models of cars out there, just what are the chances you will find the exact features you want in a car made in Canada?
You might as well argue that Canadians should only eat apples, never oranges.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2009-02-11 11:03:45 PM
Ten THOUSAND models of cars? You exaggerate, I presume.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-11 11:22:13 PM
170000 jobs lost in January. Thats no exaggeration. So keep buying foriegn folks. It will get to you eventually.
Posted by: Ted | 2009-02-12 4:07:35 AM
It seems Unions have had their day.
They are socialist, and socialism is a cancer, which is now killing its host.
Posted by: JC | 2009-02-12 4:36:21 AM
Ted have you read some of the comments here? They are making some very good point. One of which is that it is not possible to buy purely domistic these days. Even if it was it would not be a good idea.
I recently went to a seminar hosted by the Institute for Liberal studies that talked about buying only local foods. They demonstrated pretty convincingly that this would not only be worse for the economy but worse for the enviroment. So please don't assume that you are helping the economy by only buying domistic.
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-02-12 8:19:49 AM
How about non-Ontarians buy American in order to drive fascist Ontario into the ground? Anyone?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-12 8:41:55 AM
This past summer I bought a 2008 Saturn Astra. It was sold by a U.S. company, but it was assembled in Belgium from an engine made in Germany, a transmission made in Japan, and plastics and electronics packs from probably a half-dozen countries in Southeast Asia. Technically it counts as domestic, but in truth, it's from all over--like most things these days.
I buy most of my hunting gear from American outfits, made to order by Americans. It costs three times what it would cost to buy something made in Vietnam. I'm certainly not wealthy but I do like quality and I like having the option to send something back for service or repair. So while expensive, such things typically only need to be bought once.
I realize, however, that not everyone is able, or willing, to spend that kind of money. If we bought only domestically produced goods the cost of living would triple, easily. If we removed unions from the scene, we might get that down to double. Who here is prepared to accept such an increase?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-12 8:47:14 AM
Don't we have a Buy Canada policy. If we don't, what's our Buy Canada policy, which we have, all about?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-02-12 1:50:06 PM
How could a Buy Canada policy be afforded? Most income is generated from trade. Any benefits would be temporary.
This is about as stupid, as most Ontario ideas are, as the plan to suspend energy exports to the US to 'teach them a lesson.' It would fail miserably, and convince Alberta to secede.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-02-12 7:13:12 PM
The example dearest to the hearts of the manufacturing industry is the Avro Arrow. Contrary to popular belief, it was not closed down because of pressure from the United States. It was shutdown because no one would buy it.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on February 11, 2009
Untrue.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-12 8:09:46 PM
Actually, Stig, it is true. The Avro Arrow was far from the only aeronautical project cancelled on the heels of the flight of Sputnik I. A very advanced interceptor project in the U.S. was cancelled, and the British produced a white paper whereby they essentially declared the manned interceptor obsolete. The focus shifted to anti-missile missiles such as the Bomarc, and under such conditions no country was prepared to invest in a new aircraft, no matter how advanced.
Of course, after only a few years had passed and the West had duplicated the USSR's ICBM capability, everyone realized how hasty they had been. (The Russians, to their credit, had shown greater sense.) Since the technology to build an ABM accurate enough to do the job without resorting to a nuclear warhead did not exist in the 1960s (and arguably still doesn't), we wound up buying F-101 Voodoos and F-104 Starfighters just three years after the Arrow was cancelled. They were a vast improvement over the CF-100 Canuck, but inferior to the Arrow.
The tragedy is that while England and America were able to rejuvenate their combat aircraft industries, Canada was not. The Avro plant at Malton was sold to de Havilland, and the talented scientists and engineers emigrated to the States. Now we have only the truncated nose section of RL-206 and a single Orenda Iroquois engine on display to remind us of what might have been.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-12 8:39:45 PM
P.S. A similar phenomenon of the 50s and 60s was the removal of cannon from ships and aircraft, in the belief that missiles were superior in all instances. Like the temporary cancellation of manned aircraft projects, this turned out to be an error. Missiles rule in the BVR (beyond visual range) arena, but nothing beats a gun in a close-in fight. Ships and aircraft now carry both.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-12 8:44:33 PM
Actually, Stig, it is true.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-12 8:39:45 PM
Actually Matthews it isn't true. Roe was negotiating with France to sell 200 Iroquois engines that were used in the Arrow. France also expressed some interest in a licensing deal. Had the aircraft been put into production and had a couple of years of service with the RCAF it probably could have been sold to many countries.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-02-12 9:40:05 PM
A negotiation is not a deal, Stig, and an engine is not an aircraft. It might be a happy thought that some of the Iroquois's technology lived on in the Olympus engines that powered the Concorde, but there's no direct proof.
The British expressed an interest in acquiring a few Arrows for research, but not enough to justify continuing a program that had run far over budget in an era where the day of the manned interceptor was assumed to be done.
You're right in that had the Arrow entered production and been able to weather the next couple of years it would probably have found many buyers, but in February 1959 there were none to be found, including in Canada itself.
There is also some evidence that the production line and prototypes were all torched because a mole had been discovered at Avro, a suspicion later confirmed to some extent by the Mitrokhin Archives, and it was considered safer to destroy the technology than to let the Soviets have it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-12 10:27:49 PM
Ah, The Avro Arrow!!
The myths never stop----they just get bolder and more rediculous. Everyone "done us wrong"!
Less hand wringing about an antique aircraft and more attention to bringing Canada into the 21st century would be a more profitable and interesting past time.
Ozgood
Posted by: Ozgood | 2009-02-13 4:34:31 PM
I only mentioned it as an example to illustrate my point
Posted by: hughmacintyre | 2009-02-13 4:40:15 PM
Hey, if the CAW wants us to buy Canadian autos, they may as well start looking for jobs now.
There are no Canadian auto manufacturers.
Better get rid of them American-made cars.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-02-13 4:46:40 PM
from msa
did it not recently(free of info)FBI come to light that one of the reasons for the av arrow to go in the tank
was US pressure after it was revealed cold war agents had infiltrated the engineering
team
Posted by: p.obrien | 2009-02-15 7:27:00 PM
when the olympic uniforms were bought abroad personally i felt a canadian co. could do that job
look around changes are afoot some times you can't
buy anything but imports.buying cd doesn't have to be protectionism buying only cdn is protectionism .unions, from the tall puddle martyrs to the people killed at the gates of ford
in the 30's they have evolved.health care dental plans legal safety on the job fair wages and dignity on the job all union gains.some country's
kill trade unionists for different reasons usually because they don't want the workers to get a fair shake
Posted by: tartan10 | 2009-02-15 7:50:48 PM
tartan10
"kill trade unionists for different reasons usually because they don't want the workers to get a fair shake".
Anyone who has studied the rise of unions from the late 1800 through the 1930's and what living and working conditions were like during this time would have to admit that the standard of living we now take for granted is mainly thanks to unions. Unfortunately, unions have gone well past the happy medium with demands that exceeded ability to comply have gotten a dirty name in the process. One of the main reason we have shipped thousands of factories to China/India/Mexico is to break Unions and take advantage of 50 cent per hour labor with no benefits. Good for shareholders but only for a short time as it drives our standard of living down to meet the 50 cent per hour countries. As our standard of living declines, the ability to buy the products made in 3rd world countries also declines, therby hurting the very companies and shareholders that cheered this concept on. It turns into a vicious cycle that we are now entering with no way out. Corporate greed and Union greed got us into this mess. Stimulus packages will not get us out. Maybe thats why major recessions are generally followed by wars. Full employment and wide open production to feed the war machine. War has always been good for business.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-02-15 8:56:55 PM
Grohmann Knives Ltd Pictou NS ,,, made belt knives for the Candian Forces .. gov went to a distributor in Toronto ,, now imported from China for a savings of $3 per knive ,,, so they saved $9000 ,, BUT lost the income tax they would have collected from the now unemplyed Canadain ,,, the soldiers are throwing away the Chinese Junk , and purchasing their own knifes
Posted by: D Caldwell | 2009-02-16 5:50:23 PM
Your point about major depressions being followed by wars is well taken, Peter. If America goes casting about for an enemy to crush to lift it out of this depression, then Iran had better watch its step. Just let Russia step in on Iran's side and we'd have World War III.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-02-16 6:20:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.