Ottawa's new 'Buy Canadian' procurement rules kick in amid trade war
By: By Uday Rana - Canada's Global News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ottawa's new 'Buy Canadian' procurement rules kick in amid trade war
The federal government's "Buy Canadian" policy for procurement for large infrastructure and defence projects kicked in on Tuesday as the U.S. trade war continues, Procurement Minister Joel Lightbound says.
The policy was announced by Prime Minister Mark Carney in September and is essentially a mandate for the federal government to source components used in major government projects from domestic manufacturers.
The procurement policy will extend immediately to government contracts valued at $25 million and over, but will expand to contracts valued at $5 million and over by the spring of 2026, Lightbound said.
"In other words, companies with a real footprint in Canada — those that invest here, employ Canadians and innovate domestically — will receive a clear advantage when they bid on federal contracts," he said.
Additionally, large federal construction and defence projects valued at $25 million or more will be required to use Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood products where the basic supply is available, he added.
Under the new policy, these materials must be manufactured or processed in Canada, not just sold by distributors, to ensure that federal projects "genuinely drive demand for Canadian-made material."
The new policy applies across federal departments and agencies. It will also apply to Crown corporations and grants and contribution programs of the federal government.
"With Buy Canadian, we are fully leveraging public procurement as an economic development tool, strengthening supply chains, supporting jobs and helping Canadian businesses compete globally," Lightbound said.
The government has already put in place a similar policy for the use of Canadian steel and softwood lumber for federal projects.
In July, Carney had announced Canada would "restrict and reduce foreign steel imports entering the Canadian market." In August, the policy was extended to Canadian lumber.
The administrator of this group reserves the right, along with the site moderators, to moderate all and any postings to this group, including the right to enforce the ToS, the CoC, and also including anything that the administrator deems within his sole discretion to be offensive, including and not limited to off topic or 'no value' comments, with the power to delete in exercising those rights.
It would be best, therefore, to be civil in posting on this group.
By now it should be well known that the administrator is unable to open certain sources, videos and pictures. If he cannot, he will ask that they be described and explained. If the poster refuses to comply, their comment will be deleted. Instagrams are banned.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
Makes sense to me. Isn't it the same as what Trump is doing in the USA?
Carney is making sense to you? I'm shocked seeing as how you have been so willing to denounce him not so long ago. Time to reevaluate his pragmatism Buzz.
I have consistently made it clear that I am NOT locked into any political loyalty but voice my opinions no matter which side of the aisle they might favour. I am a centrist. If I see something I think is good or beneficial I say so, and if I think it's bad or detrimental I say so.
Was that not already the case? How?
Shouldn't that be true in every country? Shouldn't government money be spent with domestic businesses whenever possible? These just seems common sense to me. What am I missing?
Maybe it has always been whose bid is lowest. Now, because of Trump's unjust tariffs, employment becomes a prime incentive for political action.
Couple of points/questions.
First, it seems to me that if I were Canadian and paid the level of tax that they pay, I would expect that money to be recycled into the Canadian economy to help grow it. If Canada were ever to become the 51st US state, it would rank 50th of 51 in per capita GDP. If I were Canadian, I would be wondering where all the money goes.
Secondly, I'm on record as a tariff opponent. I would love for them to all go away. That said, why are Trump's unjust when Canadian tariffs on US goods that have existed for decades somehow not unjust?
Maybe expenses are less in Canada, and with respect to healthcare, IMO that more than levels the playing field. Canada imposed tariffs? Well, what's good for the goose....
Canada had tariffs long before Trump was ever in office. That's the point. If the new tariffs are unjust.... and I would argue they are more stupid than unjust.... why were the old ones OK?
With regard to keeping Canadian govt expenses in Canada, it still just seems like that should be the default. If the Trump tariffs spurred that, it might be one of the only positive outcomes from them.
Maybe the reason we didn't hear valid complaints about the previous tariffs is because they were justified and reasonable. Trump saying Canada had been stealing from the USA because 10 times as many Americans were buying Canadian products than Canadians buying American products is nothing but an ignorant joke. It should be obvious to even the stupidest MAGA that America's population is 10 times that of Canada. And Canada doesn't FORCE America to buy its oil, gas and lumber that makes the big difference between normal reciprocity.
Maybe. But now we're getting into a very subjective decision process where it's very easy to let either allegiance to or distaste of the person in charge of the decision dictate the validity of the decision itself.
In short, it's a bit ridiculous to simply claim "our tariffs are justified but yours are unfair".
Do you not acknowledge that the whole issue of trade and tariffs between Canada and the USA was very different before Trump than after Trump? If you don't I see no purpose in continuing this discussion.
Obviously. That's the whole point.
We're now in a higher tariff scenario, which I agree is sub-optimal.
But there were Canadian tariffs in place long before Trump ever thought about running for office. Why should those be acceptable if American tariffs are not? Why should Chinese tariffs be acceptable if American tariffs are not? Or Indian? Or Australian? Or EU?
Tariffs are not good or bad based on the obnoxiousness of the person enacting them.
As with most issues, the primary problem IMO with the current tariff situation is how Trump did it, not that it was done. Had he behaved like an actual leader, with intentionality, predictability and proper communication, there would not be the outrage over what he did.
For example, had he said "In 90 days the United States will enact matching reciprocal tariffs on goods from any country that enacts tariffs on American products", everybody would have understood what he was doing, had time to respond, and a decision to make. The tariffs on their goods would have been entirely in their hands, so they would have only themselves to blame.
Correct, what matters is the reasoning and the method employed.
Tariffs used to protect strategic industries is a normal and responsible use. Tariffs as a threat or worse as a misguided attempt to get foreign nation to ‘pay’ is incompetence and counterproductive.
Trump negotiated the trade deal with Canada. So his immediate actions were irrational. Instead of threats and trolling, a responsible PotUS would have engaged Canada privately to renegotiate if he believed trade was unfair.
Public threats, etc. would be a last resort … not the opening salvo.
Trump is a buffoon.
Yes!
Thanks. I cannot understand why that is so hard for others to understand. And IMO it's not just that it was Trump, and that it was his method. As well it was much of his tariffs were unjustified and unfairly penalizing (after all, the whole world is stealing from America because Americans buy so much more than other nations).