Winnipeg can buy local

There is no such thing as a free lunch, but one closer to home probably feels better. For years, local favourite Salisbury House has been the chosen vendor for Winnipeg-owned golf courses. In late April, news emerged that the City of Winnipeg had gone against local tastes and chosen Aramark, an American-owned company, for the job.

When our public entities buy local, they create jobs, provide economic stability and improve responsiveness to the public. In this uncertain global climate, “buying local” is not a gimmick but a necessity. Until recently, this philosophy was persuasive.

Mayor Scott Gillingham has, however, reversed course on a buy-local policy. Following staff feedback, the mayor claims the policy would violate trade obligations. He is both right and wrong.

While there are limits in Canadian trade deals to buying local, they are not determinative. Not only can Winnipeg establish a buy-local policy, the city would be at a disadvantage if it does not.

The City of Winnipeg has public procurement obligations in three key trade deals: the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union, the internal Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and the smaller New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA).

These agreements prohibit Winnipeg from discriminating against European or out-of-province firms when spending money on covered purchases of goods, services or construction projects. In plain language, Winnipeg cannot favour its own suppliers at the expense of either European, Canadian or Western Canadian suppliers.

These agreements also stop Winnipeg, in most circumstances, from setting aside some contracts for small or women-owned businesses or requiring winning bidders to contribute to local economic development.

As onerous as these terms are, there are still ways for Winnipeg to implement a buy-local policy.

First, these trade-related procurement rules only apply to certain purchases. Smaller purchases are not covered, which means Winnipeg can do what it wants.

Second, these agreements require equal treatment for covered suppliers. This includes European and other Canadian companies, not companies from the United States.

Third, while Winnipeg cannot explicitly favour local firms on tenders above the trade agreements’ low spending thresholds, they can favour suppliers with other intrinsic characteristics. For example, the city could give preference to unionized workplaces, co-operatives or certified sustainable or fair-trade goods and services.

Indeed, the city’s sustainable procurement plan is commendable for its thoughtful engagement with ecological, economic and social barriers. It is especially effective in communicating the value and potential for Indigenous and social enterprise set-asides.

If the city can do this, why can’t it favour local suppliers or at least bar American vendors? It can. Other Canadian jurisdictions are showing how simple such a policy can be.

Brampton, Ont., introduced a made-in-Canada policy that blocks American suppliers from its purchases. North Vancouver, B.C., is similarly building on its current buy-local policy to consider ways to exclude U.S. suppliers.

Canadian provinces are also introducing buy-local policies despite having more cumbersome procurement obligations.

Last year, Manitoba introduced a Buy Canadian Act that favoured local suppliers ineligible purchases. Here, Canadian suppliers are favoured whenever possible. The government has also banned American bidders, though there are some inconsistencies.

Ontario recently legislated a Buy Ontario Act. Its approach has been to favour Ontarian suppliers first and, when the CFTA is applicable, Canadian suppliers next. Quebec and New Brunswick have done the same.

Even the federal government, whose public spending is more restricted in trade deals than any other jurisdiction, has created a Buy Canadian policy. This policy favours Canadian suppliers, content and materials within major strategic purchases.

The federal government also has an Interim Reciprocal Procurement policy that eliminates suppliers from countries without commensurate access. This would include U.S. companies such as Aramark, despite its Mississauga headquarters in Canada.

In brief, Winnipeg would be in good company with a buy-local policy. Ideally, this policy would bar American suppliers, advantage local and Canadian suppliers for low-value purchases and require community benefits for major strategic purchases.

In fact, without such a policy, Winnipeg’s local businesses could needlessly miss out on lucrative opportunities while others eat their lunch.

Noah Fry is a Killam postdoctoral fellow in the department of political science at Dalhousie University. Stuart Trew is a senior trade researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.