Canada West Foundation Blog

British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan are signing an agreement today that will increase cooperation among the three provinces. The “New West Partnership Agreement” is focused on combining efforts to increase trade with Asia. It is an example of provinces working together rather than duplicating efforts, or worse, working at cross purposes.

Unfortunately, the irrational fear of allowing the free movement of goods, labour and investment in Canada hangs over this agreement. This fear, stirred up by vested interests who considered the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) signed by BC and Alberta a few years ago to be a sign of the Apocalypse, has hampered efforts to increase economic efficiency, maximize the mobility rights of Canadians and reduce the amount of tax dollars used to prop up uncompetitive local businesses.

We need to stop the hypocritical thinking that says “my business should be able to compete for sales in province X or country Y, but I don’t like it when a business in province X or country Y tries to sell stuff in my backyard.” Free trade means embracing competition and the benefits it brings. This does not mean that you are not allowed to “buy local.” All it means is that a business from the province next door or a country far away has an equal chance to compete without the government fixing the odds beforehand.

Western Canadians should be proud that we are leaders in the country when it comes to bringing down barriers to internal trade and cooperating with each other. From the Western College of Veterinary Medicine to the new agreement being signed today, the West has a long tradition of interprovincial cooperation. And when it comes to cooperation among our provincial governments, more is better than less.

Of course, not everyone agrees. What do you think?

Posted By: Robert Roach

Calgary’s Mount Royal University has a new logo courtesy of a Toronto design firm. The decision to use a Toronto designer rather than a Calgary firm has ruffled the feathers of those who feel a local supplier should have got the gig.

When a local project sources the services of a business located somewhere else, it often leads to these sorts of complaints. But consider this: what if the University of Toronto used a Calgary design firm to create its new logo? This would be a source of pride for Calgary.

For free trade to work, we have to resist the temptation to favour local suppliers simply because they are local. The contract should go to the best (however that is defined) supplier. This enables the competition that keeps costs down and quality up.

Imagine if residents of Saskatoon decided they would only buy oranges from local growers. Their oranges would cost a small fortune! Imagine if the countries that buy Alberta beef decided that they would only buy local beef. Albertans would be pretty angry—and rightly so.

What we need to realize is that free trade is a two-way street. If we favour local supplies, so will the people and places to which we hope to sell our products and services.

It is not a perfect system, but at the end of the day, we are better off with a cosmopolitan economy—bit it within Canada or on a global level—as opposed to a purely local economy. This does not mean that we should not use local suppliers, it just means that they should have to compete with suppliers from further afield.

Posted By: Robert Roach