You are not logged in.

#1 2013-07-11 10:46:11

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

So I find it a bit ironic to still see these signs on vehicles as it is the CAW who made these signs and it is the CAW that is hurting the auto industry. It is the foreign auto makers who are now creating more jobs in Ontario while the Big Three close plants and are taking their production south. The CAW is just against the foreign auto makers because they don't have or want the CAW in their plants. Like to see how effective the CAW is going to be at stopping the movement of product down to the states and Mexico!

Offline

 

#2 2013-07-14 09:36:04

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

I am not sure what to buy anymore..  we bought a ford fusion thinking it was made in U.S.A. or Canada but it turned out it was made in mexico..and let me add that it is a fine automobile.............

Offline

 

#3 2013-07-14 18:46:24

Stratfordian
Member
Registered: 2011-11-11
Posts: 127

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

Is the Honda Civic from Aliston Japanese?  Is the Ford Fusion Mexican?  Is the Chevy Sonic Korean?  Is the Lexus RX 350 from Cambridge Canadian?  Can't we all just get along?

Offline

 

#4 2013-07-15 10:15:57

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

The other thing is we are still paying tarifes on Honda's even though their produced here thanks again to the CAW and their protectionism.

Offline

 

#5 2013-07-15 17:26:40

Stratfordian
Member
Registered: 2011-11-11
Posts: 127

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

spankie wrote:

The other thing is we are still paying tarifes on Honda's even though their produced here thanks again to the CAW and their protectionism.

How does the CAW impose tariffs on cars?  Can you provide source information for that?  The Auto Pact is history as world trade regulations rendered them unfair, so I find it hard to believe a car made in Ontario has any special tariff or duty imposed on it simply because of the national origin of the company producing it.

Again, if you can provide some authority for this, I'd be pleased to consider it.

Offline

 

#6 2013-07-17 15:21:26

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

Stratfordian wrote:

spankie wrote:

The other thing is we are still paying tarifes on Honda's even though their produced here thanks again to the CAW and their protectionism.

How does the CAW impose tariffs on cars?  Can you provide source information for that?  The Auto Pact is history as world trade regulations rendered them unfair, so I find it hard to believe a car made in Ontario has any special tariff or duty imposed on it simply because of the national origin of the company producing it.

Again, if you can provide some authority for this, I'd be pleased to consider it.

Because they forced the government to impose the Tariff to protect their jobs. There have been many reports on the news about the disparate of the price of Honda's sold in Canada as opposed to the same model sold in the States due to such tariffs.

Offline

 

#7 2013-07-18 00:53:44

bulldog
Member
Registered: 2008-03-05
Posts: 665

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

i do not blame CAW for tarriffs totally, it is a complex world out there, but here is an example in regards to motorcycles..  In 2010 I was looking for a Honda ST1300.  In Canada it was $21,000 plus tax bringing it to $23730.00.  In Pennsylvania the same bike cost $16,000 which included sales tax.   The problems involve duties, and also the manufacturer policies regarding prices in each country.  I do not understand it myself except that as a consumer, I have a choice.  I bought a Harley Davidson as the price points are less variable between U.S.A. and Canada and the prices of Harley Touring machines are about the same or less then the Touring Hondas sold in Canada.  It used to be in the 1970's that Harleys were twice as much money as Japanese Motorcycles but times have changed..........

Offline

 

#8 2013-07-19 00:27:59

Stratfordian
Member
Registered: 2011-11-11
Posts: 127

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

Neither of you has answered the question.  State the source of the proof that a Honda manufactured in Alliston, Ontario, has duties imposed on it. 

We all know vehicles are more expensive to buy in Canada vice the USA- nothing at all to do with duties, in fact.  Books are more expensive, it even says so on the back.  No tariff there, just discriminatory pricing from private business.

A source please.  Show me the legal basis on which the Government of Canada imposes a tariff on a car made in Canada solely because the owner of the plant is Japanese.  Such a tariff wouldn't survive a day.  We cannot give favourable treatment to cars manufactured in North America (hence the end of the Auto Pact), we certainly could not justify a tax imposed in manufacture based on the national origin of the plant's owners.

Proof please.

Offline

 

#9 2013-07-19 09:55:21

Steel
Member
Registered: 2008-02-16
Posts: 2521

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

In reference to the Auto-Pact. The Auto-Pact ended not because of any external trade issue outside North America, but rather the signing of the FTA in January of 1988 ended it.

The Auto Pact as it was originally designed was hotly opposed by the then UAW's Canadian arm when it was signed in 1965 the union said it would stifle Canadian auto production and cost thousands of Jobs. In 1964, only 7% of vehicles made in Canada were sent south of the border, but by 1968, the figure was 60%. The union was of course wrong....as they most often are....and again in 1988 they objected to the FTA that would ultimately end the Auto Pact....something they then realized had created thousands of new union jobs.

The Honda Plant in Aliston by the very fact it is in Canada falls under NAFTA and there is no duty paid on the parts produced in North American that go into the cars, nor the cars themselves. No duty or tariffs on them in the US, Canada or Mexico....

to: spanks...know what you are talking about before you start your lips moving.

Offline

 

#10 2013-07-19 15:31:21

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

Well it's still the CAW behind the stickers which are specifically aimed at Honda and Toyota. And it was from TV news programs where they mentioned tariffs associated with the increased price in Canada.

Offline

 

#11 2013-07-19 15:43:36

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

April 28, 2013
Canada's trade talks with Japan focus on car plants
By GREG KEENAN, BARRIE McKENNA
Canada seeks new auto investment in exchange for dropping a 6.1-per-cent tariff on the importation of vehicles

The federal government is putting a hard sell on Japanese auto makers to boost investment here as Canada and Japan open sweeping free-trade negotiations.

Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade, and Christian Paradis, Industry Minister, met Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. and Toyota Motor Corp. officials earlier this month amid free-trade talks that will address Japan's desire to eliminate a key Canadian automotive trade policy a 6.1-per-cent tariff that Canada levies on vehicles imported from outside North America.

One question for the two ministers is whether they can trade that tariff for a new assembly plant or expanded factories and potentially thousands of jobs or settle for increased access to Japan for other Canadian products or some other less visible trade-off.

The existing Toyota and Honda of Canada Mfg. assembly plants in Cambridge, Ont., and Alliston, Ont., were opened in the late 1980s when then-industry minister Ed Lumley choked off imports of those companies' vehicles in Vancouver until they agreed to build plants here. That was part of a long-time strategy on the part of successive federal governments to use various elements of trade policy to win new auto investments.

"It would be pretty difficult to do a deal with Japan without addressing [the auto tariff], if it was going to be a high-quality free-trade deal," pointed out John Weekes, a former top Canadian trade negotiator and now an adviser with law firm Bennett Jones. The vast majority of the duties now collected on Japanese imports to Canada come from autos.

Two-way trade between Canada and Japan totalled $25.24-billion in 2012. About 42 per cent of that was motor vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles and trailers.

Given that Honda and Toyota already have a significant presence in Canada, Mr. Weekes said Ottawa could be making a mistake by demanding a lot more as a condition for ending the duty.

"They should be using this as an opportunity to reinforce what we have, not hold them ransom," he said.

Joe Loparco, chairman of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association of Canada, told a Canada-Japan trade symposium in Toronto last week that a free-trade agreement could lead to another Japanese auto plant being located in Canada.

Japanese auto makers want Canada to create a level playing field with their competitors from South Korea and Europe, Toshihiro Iwatake, executive director of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association Inc., said in an interview in Toronto last week.

If trade agreements between Canada and the European Union and Canada and South Korea eliminate the 6.1-per-cent tariff, Japanese companies will be disadvantaged, Mr. Iwatake said, which will make this country less attractive for new Japanese investment.

Canada might insist on new auto investments by Japanese companies in return for eliminating the tariff, but "I wonder whether the Japanese government will be successful to force Nissan or Toyota or any Japanese company to make investments," he noted.

The meetings Mr. Fast and Mr. Paradis held in Japan were about the investment attractiveness of Canada, including some opportunities in this country that Ottawa wants to see "come to a successful outcome," said one federal official.

One of those could be Nissan's plan to assemble vehicles for its Infiniti luxury brand in North America.

Mr. Paradis met with Infiniti chief executive officer Johan de Nysschen in Hong Kong this month, but Automotive News later reported that Canada is no longer being considered for the Infiniti operation.

The auto industry is also central in the Canada-EU and Canada-South Korea free-trade talks. A Canada-EU deal is down to a "small handful of issues," Mr. Fast said last week.

The Canada-EU talks appear to include a deal that involves Canada reducing its 6.1-per-cent tariff on imported vehicles while Europe reduces its 10-per-cent vehicle tariff.

Offline

 

#12 2013-07-19 15:48:14

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

The CAW rhetoric.

Tariff Changes & The Canadian Auto Industry


    Presentation to Federal Minister of Industry John Manley

    By

    Buzz Hargrove, President
    Canadian Auto Workers Union

    Toronto, Ontario

    December 17, 1997

In response to lobbying from Japanese-based auto companies, the federal government is about to legislate an end to the tariff on auto components facing overseas imports from non-auto pact companies (imported components from the U.S. and Mexico are already gone or being phased out for qualifying companies under the NAFTA).

Although the government was in the midst of a joint review with the companies, of the direction of this industry - a review we had been asked to join - it unilaterally and deviously moved to make this tariff change by slipping it in, by way of other legislation, hiding it in a section on "Works of Art, Collectors' Pieces, and Antiques". The government has tried to argue that its intentions were well known long ago, but it was certainly the understanding of the CAW that past tariff concessions to the Japanese companies were temporary (why else were they scheduled to end on December 31, 1997?). Discussions with GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association confirm that our understanding was shared by the industry as well. We wrote to you in August (August 6, 1997) but received no reply until we had sent a second letter (November 19,1997) and after the Bill had gone through the House. This process follows a pattern of arrogant disregard for democratic processes that has dangerously become all too common in Ottawa.

Bad decisions, badly made, must - especially in this case - be reversed and learned from.

Responding to imports: Canada and the U.S.

A weak market and excess capacity in Japan, and a determination to increase market share overseas, has recently led to a marked increase in motor vehicle exports from Japan. Contrast the reaction of the governments of the U.S. and Canada.

U.S. vehicle imports from Japan have increased 11% so far this year. The reaction of the U.S. administration was to threaten retaliation. Canadian vehicle imports from Japan increased 63% (121% for Honda and 100% for Toyota) as the Japanese-based companies increased exports to Canada faster than to any other country in the world. Although we have to shout louder than the U.S. to be heard, our response was silence - an implicit invitation to keep shipping. And, to add insult to injury, we declared that they should be rewarded by ending all tariffs on imported parts! (The U.S. retains its 2.5% tariff on components, and still retain a 25% tariff on pick-ups).

Not a very impressive negotiating strategy.

Fairness and unfair complaints

Toyota and Honda have argued that the Japanese-based industry is being treated unfairly by Canada. Let's look at some facts. They have, since the mid-eighties, been given exemption on the parts duties they faced. They were invited into the auto pact in the latter eighties but refused. They always run a surplus in auto trade with us (almost $3 billion in latest year) and for every dollar of auto parts we send to Japan, Japan ships over $33 to us. At a time when Big Three sales in Canada did relatively well, increasing by 12% in the first 11 months of this year, Honda sales increased by 41% and Toyota by 44% (Honda and Toyota overall sales include both transplants and imports).

Exactly who is being unfair to whom in this trading relationship?

Jobs: Is the government counting?

The CAW has never attacked the investments made in Canada by the Japanese-based companies. We have never argued that the issue is the nationality of the companies involved. Our emphasis has always been on the performance of auto companies as measured by their long term commitments to Canada in terms of investment and jobs. By this measure, the Japanese-based companies fall short.

To put the new investments by Honda and Toyota in perspective, Ford and GM have invested more than these two companies in just components in Windsor alone. Chrysler has created more new jobs just through the expansion of its assembly plants in Windsor and Bramalea. And the reduced worktime negotiated by our union in the nineties has opened up some 2,000 jobs at the Big Three - about the level of new jobs promised by Honda and Toyota.

Even if we exclude Nissan and Mazda - who sell here but provide virtually no manufacturing jobs here (Nissan has a wheel plant) - and even if we look ahead and include the new investments being made by Honda and Toyota, then for every vehicle sold here, the job creation ratio of the Big Three is three-four times that of Honda and Toyota. After their expansions, Honda and Toyota will directly employ about 4,000 workers. If Chrysler, (which sells about 20% more vehicles than Honda and Toyota), matched their direct job contribution in Canada, they would provide under 5, 000 jobs here, rather than the 15,000 they actually employ. Extend this to all of the Big Three, and they'd have under 20,000 direct workers in Canada rather than over 60,000 - more than 40,000 jobs below where they are today.

What can be said of an industrial policy that encourages the Japanese companies to import more duty-free - rather than having to produce more here?

Oblivious Timing

We cannot conceive of a worse time to increase incentives to import automotive products. Global excess capacity is estimated to be over 20 million units (some 80 assembly plants); we are now in a trade agreement with Mexico which has seen exports from Mexico explode (for every dollar of automotive goods we export to Mexico, we import $13-$14 and the automotive deficit with Mexico in 1995-6 exceeded even that with Japan); Asia is in the midst of a deep crisis and looking to export its way out (even before the economic collapse, S.Korea had an internal market of under 2 million but was building capacity for almost 6 million units); the Japanese Yen has fallen by 30% since 1995; workers in the North American industry are anticipating or experiencing massive restructuring due to technological change, workplace reorganizing, outsourcing, and plant closures (GM's announcement of a workforce reduction in North America of some 42,000 jobs is only the latest in a series of on-going job losses); and overall Canadian unemployment remains depressingly high in spite of the federal government's election promises.

In this context, what could possibly spur a government to aggravate the threats Canadian workers and their communities face?

Incentives for what purpose?

The government might argue that this latest tariff-reduction is an incentive to get more assembly plants here. This is ridiculous. First, Honda and Toyota are already here and have already announced expansions; any additional favours are gravy, not investment incentives. Besides, they themselves didn't come because of the tariff reduction, but out of fear of further Canadian retaliation after former minister Ed Lumley's warnings in the early eighties, and because of their recognition that Canada happens to be a good place to invest. Second, given the excess capacity in North America, we shouldn't be encouraging more assembly plants but emphasizing the need for more Canadian parts content in existing plants. Reducing the parts tariff, however, does the opposite; if anything, it's an incentive to import more parts.

What is driving the government's thinking?

Consumers and Prices

In the early nineties, the U.S.-based auto companies increased their prices beyond inflation and costs; they traded market-share for profits. As workers in the industry and as consumers, we would have preferred that prices were lower and output higher. This has, unfortunately, given some ammunition to free-traders. In response, we emphasize the following points:

    Given the importance of this industry in the consumer budget, the government should regularly monitor, analyze, and publicly report on trends in vehicle prices.
    The economic climate is now radically changed. Investments in North America, massive excess capacity internationally, and the falling currencies in Asia are already restraining auto pricing.
    Consumers aren't helped much by a policy that throws people out of work and reduces domestic purchasing power. Consumers are also workers and in Canada we're starting with unemployment rates that are already high. As a recent Business Week article pointed out, when we buy domestic goods, the issue isn't just price; we buy a package that imports can't replace:

        "Every [domestic] auto is better than any import because it contains features you can't get on any import - schools, crime prevention, roads, bridges, defense, health care, social security, etc."

Conclusion: Who's speaking for Canadian jobs?

Canada has an auto industry because historically we made a conscious decision that this was crucial to our economy. The central policy instrument used to guarantee an industry was trade policy. The government's removal of the parts tariff has left us in the historically unique position of having less tariff protection on components than even the dominant American industry.

The investments which our past policy brought to Canada led to the development of an efficient, high quality, low cost industry. But we cannot leave the sector's future to the market. New international pressures and uncertainties demand that we don't surrender what is left of our remaining trade policy tools.

In recent times, our trade policy revolved around the auto pact. The principle under which the Big Three made their investments was that access to the Canadian market depended on commitments made to our communities. The penalty to enforce this was tariffs on parts and vehicles facing those who refused to make this commitment. Ending the tariff on parts undermines what is left of the auto pact. It does so for no defensible reason, at the worst of times, and with no alternative policy in place.

We therefore call on the Ministry of Industry, as the government ministry allegedly most responsible for supporting a strong domestic auto sector to:

    Speak out loudly and clearly on behalf of Canadian workers and their communities
    Seriously re-examine your ill-thought out direction on the auto parts tariff and reverse it.
    Assure workers, their communities, and the auto pact members of the industry that you have no intention of going even further to end the tariff on vehicles, thereby completely ending the auto pact.

None of these minimal steps require long studies and repetitious meetings. There is no reason why this government can't respond quickly and positively before the uncertainty grows.

Offline

 

#13 2013-07-19 16:05:19

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

Canadian versus US car price difference prompts government investigation

By Shawn Molnar RSS feed

Posted Feb 20th 2013 11:30AM
57182
Comments30


You've likely heard the parable of the fly who landed in the vinegar, and thought it was the sweetest taste in the world. He hadn't tasted honey yet - that was the next jar on the shelf. There's a bit of a parallel here: Canadian consumers tend to think the local shopping is sweet - unless they've made a trip south of the border especially when it comes to cars!

The US versus Canada price gap is a hefty one - in some cases Canadian prices more than double those of our American neighbours. Don't believe us? Go check out book pricing at your local Chapters book store - you're sure to see significant price discrepancies and it's easy to spot: both US and Canadian pricing will be listed together on the sticker.

Move on to the topic of buying automobiles and the cost differential gets broader and far more serious. Getting stiffed over $3.75 at a bookstore is wrong but somewhat inconsequential - getting stiffed $20,000 on a new car is a very big deal, indeed.

So severe and so long in the tooth is this economic quagmire that many border-crossing Canadians are demanding answers. Back in October of 2011 the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance began an investigation into the cross border pricing differences, and their report was just released in early February of this year.

What were the findings? Click here to check out our price comparison gallery and be sure to hit the jump to get the facts and full explanation of the pricing discrepancy. Then have your say and voice your opinion by voting in our poll.

At the heart of the matter is the fact that 2.4 million Canadians travel to the US every year for same-day trips - the majority of which include shopping. This ruffles feathers in Ottawa, because the government is losing millions of dollars from the coffers of the Canadian economy.

Many variables play into the cost discrepancy. The Canadian population spans great distances which increases shipping costs. Speaking of shipping, fuel costs are much higher in Canada, also increasing shipping costs (another issue in and of itself). Corporate expenses must be funded by a market much smaller than that of the US. The dollar exchange rate long played a part in the US/Canadian price gap - but the dollar has been at par since December 2010. Finally, taxes are much higher - namely our trade tariffs. When it comes to airplanes and automobiles we pay a 6.7 per cent tariff on foreign products while the US only pays 1.9 per cent.

Offline

 

#14 2013-07-19 16:10:49

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

Offline

 

#15 2013-07-19 16:16:55

spankie
Member
Registered: 2008-01-01
Posts: 1350

Re: Lost your job yet? - Buy Foreign Bumper Stikckers.

February 13, 2000
Volume 30, No. 7

CAW Calls On Government To Appeal WTO Auto Pact Ruling


The challenge to the Auto Pact initiated by Japanese and European auto companies upheld in a final ruling issued from the World Trade Organization (WTO) this month is yet another example of the loss of our nation's ability to act in the best interests of its citizens. The ruling states that the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact is inconsistent with WTO rules. The Auto Pact required carmakers which sold products in Canada to create jobs in this country through production of automobiles. "It provided the foundation for the auto industry in this country in the late sixties and seventies," said Canadian Auto Workers union president Buzz Hargrove. "Without the Auto Pact establishing rules we would not have the dynamic engine of auto assembly plants and related parts production for the economy that we have today." Hargrove is critical of the federal government's suggestion that it may only seek clarification of the ruling. "More and more we are seeing the government hide behind the argument that the WTO prohibits this policy or that law. The federal government must appeal the ruling." Appeal The Ruling Canada has now been directed to end the policies that provided duty-free access to our market based on a company's level of investment and jobs in our country. Currently, the Big Three with its solid record of productivity, quality and profitability, exceeds the investment and jobs requirements needed to import cars without having to pay tariffs. "While the auto industry is extraordinarily healthy today we know from our own history that the market is cyclical, the industry is undergoing tremendous change and without the protection of the Auto Pact tariffs, the industry will suffer in the long-term." Hargrove added that Canada already has one of the most open markets in the world. Open Market For every one dollar of automotive products we export, we import $68 worth of products from Japan and $10 from the European Union. Japanese producers have 24 percent of the Canadian market and exports to Canada from Japan have more than doubled since 1995. With the elimination of the Auto Pact tariffs, imports can be expected to grow negatively impacting on investment and jobs in Canada. "This ruling takes us that much closer to increasing dominance by the WTO in a wide range of decisions that will impact on everything from trade in automobiles to water and indeed our health care system," says Hargrove.

Offline

 


Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB