2014 skidoo

[Justin]

No different than GM/Chevy, Dodge getting bailed out by the US government. Going to stop buying trucks?

 

[Cat401]

A little research is in order here: When Bombardier was in financial trouble YES it recieved money from the government. As part of the way to get back on their feet they also SOLD their only profitable division, the recreational products division, (now BRP) back to the Bombardier family. It has been a different company ever since.

Yes, I know that they split in 2003.....just sick of hearing from you guys that BRP never rcvd govt handouts.....maybe not since 2003 but definately got a few truckloads of cash before.
A few million given to any company would probably make them highly profiatbale in the future....kind of a no brainer....


Here's a bit of research....good read....



Chosen Instruments


by Scott Proudfoot, Principal
July,2000

Why the Canadian government treats some companies better than others?

The federal government’s award of $144 million to companies owned by Bombardier from the Technology Partnerships Canada program generated controversy last year. The principle criticisms were that large, profitable companies such as Bombardier should not be subsidized and that Bombardier receives preferred treatment because it is a Quebec company.

On the first criticism, Bombardier clearly has been to the well repeatedly — at least $1.5 billion in grants, loans and/or loan guarantees over the last couple of decades.

On the second criticism, Bombardier has been known to play the Quebec card, but this is only a partial explanation for its success in government circles. Bombardier has been very adept at taking money-losing enterprises off the government’s hands — with the public sector partially financing the purchase. For example, when Bombardier bought de Havilland in 1992, it negotiated a $370 million government support package. The de Havilland purchase has turned out to be an extremely smart deal for Bombardier but the Federal and Ontario governments also benefited. A cash pit that had cost hundred of millions of public dollars was divested and thousands of Ontario jobs were preserved.

Bombardier also owes much of it success with the federal government to its unofficial status as a Chosen Instrument.

Chosen Instruments are private sectors companies in Canada who enjoy the status of quasi-crown corporations. By blending their private interests with the public interest, they are seen by generations of government officials as instruments of the national interest. Because these companies support the "national interest", the government goes out of its way to support these companies and their interests. Over time, it can be argued that Chosen Instruments do receive "better" treatment from government than many other companies.

In addition to Bombardier, potential candidates for Chosen Instrument status, past and present, might include: The Big Six Banks, BCE, CAE, Canadian Airlines, Canadian Marconi, Canadian Pacific, Computing Devices, Dome Petroleum, General Motors Diesel, Nortel, Oerlikon, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Trans Canada Telephone Systems, Trans Canada Pipeline, Syncrude, etc.

The principle features of Chosen Instruments seem to be:

The choice implicit in the concept of Chosen Instruments is mutual. Chosen Instruments take government seriously. They owe a substantial portion of their business success and shareholder value to their management of the government factor. Their expertise with government is used to create a significant competitive advantage for themselves.
Chosen Instruments tend to be politically adept. Even more important to their long-term success is their maintenance of links to the public service, usually aided by their openness to cherry-picking the public service for key employees.
Canadian ownership is not an absolute requirement but it certainly helps. Nationalism provides a strong motivation for supporting Chosen Instruments.
The companies tend to be market leaders in their field or minimally the Canadian market leaders. Since Canadian market leaders tend to be smaller global players, this provides one of the main rationales for the government’s support.
The list of Chosen Instruments tends to skew towards defence companies. To a great extent, what used to be described as the military/ industrial complex has evolved into a commercial/military/industrial complex. Because issues of transportation, communication and resource development have always been crucial in Canada, there are Chosen Instruments in all these sectors.
Canada tends to have Chosen Instruments in those sectors in which other countries favor and subsidize their own Chosen Instruments. Favoring certain companies can be a protective reaction to similar practices in other countries.
Sometimes Chosen Instruments congregate around certain departments. DND has the largest number, Heritage Canada has a few. Others can be provincially based; for example, Fisheries Products International in Newfoundland or the Wheat Pools in Saskatchewan.
Chosen Instruments are subject to trends and some fall by the wayside over time. In the late seventies, it was energy development and mega projects – Remember Dome Petroleum? Currently, high tech electronics is in vogue.
The most remarkable feature of the government’s policy of supporting Chosen Instruments is that the policy remains unwritten, unacknowledged and, at least partially unconscious.

Successive generations of officials have supported this policy and successive ministers of various ideological biases have bought into the policy. It is one of the few consistent themes of post-war industrial policy in Canada and the closest the federal government has come to having a coherent industrial strategy.

The policy remains unarticulated because it is controversial! If government picks winners then, by definition, it is also picking losers. Determining where the public and private interests meet is an inherently subjective exercise and open to argument.

The Canadian Government’s predilection to support Chosen Instruments has had remarkable longevity but there are a few question marks on the horizon.

Successive budget cuts means less money to subsidize business. The trend also is away from direct grants towards recoverable loans.
An increasingly liberalized trading environment places more limitations on the federal government’s ability to play favorites. The WTO recent slap on the wrist the Bombardier subsidies is an illustration. This trend will continue.
Globalization blurs national identity as a relevant indicator of corporate behavior because it inevitably leads to global loyalties and obligations. Bombardier provides a good illustration of this. Its new long range, high speed business jet is a joint venture between Japanese, French, United Kingdom, German and US companies. This certainly makes for a more complicated "Canadian benefits" test.

Who should the federal government favor? A Canadian company out-sourcing its manufacturing globally or a foreign company creating jobs here. We can expect more of a policy debate on this issue in the future.

This debate is occurring elsewhere. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s article Who is Us? Who is Them? made the argument that it is not reasonable to expect global companies to maintain national loyalties. His policy recommendation is that countries support their competitive advantage by investing in their work force instead of their multi-nationals. A recent OECD Letter stated:

"In many cases imported product contains a higher proportion of local content (tangible and intangible) than a competing domestic product. For this reason attempts to tilt the playing field in favor of domestic firms through discriminatory trade measures...or preferential treatment may become arbitrary and can be harmful to the economic interests of the country imposing the measures."

Conclusions:

While there are good reasons to think it will be less profitable to be a Chosen Instrument in the future, there is no reason to believe they will disappear. Given the role of government in our economy, there is inevitability to the existence of Chosen Instruments.

It is at least as important to pay attention to the government’s unwritten practices on industrial policy as those which find their way into formal policy documents. Companies who are not "chosen" could probably learn a thing or two about dealing with government from those that are.

 

[teeroy]

u mad bro?

 

[duck]

Yes, I know that they split in 2003.....just sick of hearing from you guys that BRP never rcvd govt handouts.....maybe not since 2003 but definately got a few truckloads of cash before.
A few million given to any company would probably make them highly profiatbale in the future....kind of a no brainer....


Here's a bit of research....good read....



Chosen Instruments


by Scott Proudfoot, Principal
July,2000

Why the Canadian government treats some companies better than others?

The federal government’s award of $144 million to companies owned by Bombardier from the Technology Partnerships Canada program generated controversy last year. The principle criticisms were that large, profitable companies such as Bombardier should not be subsidized and that Bombardier receives preferred treatment because it is a Quebec company.

On the first criticism, Bombardier clearly has been to the well repeatedly — at least $1.5 billion in grants, loans and/or loan guarantees over the last couple of decades.

On the second criticism, Bombardier has been known to play the Quebec card, but this is only a partial explanation for its success in government circles. Bombardier has been very adept at taking money-losing enterprises off the government’s hands — with the public sector partially financing the purchase. For example, when Bombardier bought de Havilland in 1992, it negotiated a $370 million government support package. The de Havilland purchase has turned out to be an extremely smart deal for Bombardier but the Federal and Ontario governments also benefited. A cash pit that had cost hundred of millions of public dollars was divested and thousands of Ontario jobs were preserved.

Bombardier also owes much of it success with the federal government to its unofficial status as a Chosen Instrument.

Chosen Instruments are private sectors companies in Canada who enjoy the status of quasi-crown corporations. By blending their private interests with the public interest, they are seen by generations of government officials as instruments of the national interest. Because these companies support the "national interest", the government goes out of its way to support these companies and their interests. Over time, it can be argued that Chosen Instruments do receive "better" treatment from government than many other companies.

In addition to Bombardier, potential candidates for Chosen Instrument status, past and present, might include: The Big Six Banks, BCE, CAE, Canadian Airlines, Canadian Marconi, Canadian Pacific, Computing Devices, Dome Petroleum, General Motors Diesel, Nortel, Oerlikon, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Trans Canada Telephone Systems, Trans Canada Pipeline, Syncrude, etc.

The principle features of Chosen Instruments seem to be:

The choice implicit in the concept of Chosen Instruments is mutual. Chosen Instruments take government seriously. They owe a substantial portion of their business success and shareholder value to their management of the government factor. Their expertise with government is used to create a significant competitive advantage for themselves.
Chosen Instruments tend to be politically adept. Even more important to their long-term success is their maintenance of links to the public service, usually aided by their openness to cherry-picking the public service for key employees.
Canadian ownership is not an absolute requirement but it certainly helps. Nationalism provides a strong motivation for supporting Chosen Instruments.
The companies tend to be market leaders in their field or minimally the Canadian market leaders. Since Canadian market leaders tend to be smaller global players, this provides one of the main rationales for the government’s support.
The list of Chosen Instruments tends to skew towards defence companies. To a great extent, what used to be described as the military/ industrial complex has evolved into a commercial/military/industrial complex. Because issues of transportation, communication and resource development have always been crucial in Canada, there are Chosen Instruments in all these sectors.
Canada tends to have Chosen Instruments in those sectors in which other countries favor and subsidize their own Chosen Instruments. Favoring certain companies can be a protective reaction to similar practices in other countries.
Sometimes Chosen Instruments congregate around certain departments. DND has the largest number, Heritage Canada has a few. Others can be provincially based; for example, Fisheries Products International in Newfoundland or the Wheat Pools in Saskatchewan.
Chosen Instruments are subject to trends and some fall by the wayside over time. In the late seventies, it was energy development and mega projects – Remember Dome Petroleum? Currently, high tech electronics is in vogue.
The most remarkable feature of the government’s policy of supporting Chosen Instruments is that the policy remains unwritten, unacknowledged and, at least partially unconscious.

Successive generations of officials have supported this policy and successive ministers of various ideological biases have bought into the policy. It is one of the few consistent themes of post-war industrial policy in Canada and the closest the federal government has come to having a coherent industrial strategy.

The policy remains unarticulated because it is controversial! If government picks winners then, by definition, it is also picking losers. Determining where the public and private interests meet is an inherently subjective exercise and open to argument.

The Canadian Government’s predilection to support Chosen Instruments has had remarkable longevity but there are a few question marks on the horizon.

Successive budget cuts means less money to subsidize business. The trend also is away from direct grants towards recoverable loans.
An increasingly liberalized trading environment places more limitations on the federal government’s ability to play favorites. The WTO recent slap on the wrist the Bombardier subsidies is an illustration. This trend will continue.
Globalization blurs national identity as a relevant indicator of corporate behavior because it inevitably leads to global loyalties and obligations. Bombardier provides a good illustration of this. Its new long range, high speed business jet is a joint venture between Japanese, French, United Kingdom, German and US companies. This certainly makes for a more complicated "Canadian benefits" test.

Who should the federal government favor? A Canadian company out-sourcing its manufacturing globally or a foreign company creating jobs here. We can expect more of a policy debate on this issue in the future.

This debate is occurring elsewhere. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s article Who is Us? Who is Them? made the argument that it is not reasonable to expect global companies to maintain national loyalties. His policy recommendation is that countries support their competitive advantage by investing in their work force instead of their multi-nationals. A recent OECD Letter stated:

"In many cases imported product contains a higher proportion of local content (tangible and intangible) than a competing domestic product. For this reason attempts to tilt the playing field in favor of domestic firms through discriminatory trade measures...or preferential treatment may become arbitrary and can be harmful to the economic interests of the country imposing the measures."

Conclusions:

While there are good reasons to think it will be less profitable to be a Chosen Instrument in the future, there is no reason to believe they will disappear. Given the role of government in our economy, there is inevitability to the existence of Chosen Instruments.

It is at least as important to pay attention to the government’s unwritten practices on industrial policy as those which find their way into formal policy documents. Companies who are not "chosen" could probably learn a thing or two about dealing with government from those that are.

I read all this hoping for news on the new ace turbo.....lol....have to wait till saturday.....

 

[CUSO]

Please define mad...

Angry, or CRAZY.. LOL

u mad bro?

 

[DaveB]

Please define mad...

Angry, or CRAZY.. LOL

or stupid.

The recreation products division has always been profitable. It was the planes and trains that dragged them down.

 

[duck]

All subsidies aside..... BRP says they are changing the game again.... I wonder what they could possibly bring to the table this year? They just brought out the XM and XS sleds last year.....hmmmmmm.

 

[DaveB]

All subsidies aside..... BRP says they are changing the game again.... I wonder what they could possibly bring to the table this year? They just brought out the XM and XS sleds last year.....hmmmmmm.

Maybe they're partnering with Cat too....that should push Cat401 over the edge....

 

[Cat401]

u mad bro?

no, quite happy and content actually....why?

 

[snopro]

Yes, I know that they split in 2003.....just sick of hearing from you guys that BRP never rcvd govt handouts.....maybe not since 2003 but definately got a few truckloads of cash before.
A few million given to any company would probably make them highly profiatbale in the future....kind of a no brainer....


Here's a bit of research....good read....



Chosen Instruments


by Scott Proudfoot, Principal
July,2000

Why the Canadian government treats some companies better than others?

The federal government’s award of $144 million to companies owned by Bombardier from the Technology Partnerships Canada program generated controversy last year. The principle criticisms were that large, profitable companies such as Bombardier should not be subsidized and that Bombardier receives preferred treatment because it is a Quebec company.

On the first criticism, Bombardier clearly has been to the well repeatedly — at least $1.5 billion in grants, loans and/or loan guarantees over the last couple of decades.

On the second criticism, Bombardier has been known to play the Quebec card, but this is only a partial explanation for its success in government circles. Bombardier has been very adept at taking money-losing enterprises off the government’s hands — with the public sector partially financing the purchase. For example, when Bombardier bought de Havilland in 1992, it negotiated a $370 million government support package. The de Havilland purchase has turned out to be an extremely smart deal for Bombardier but the Federal and Ontario governments also benefited. A cash pit that had cost hundred of millions of public dollars was divested and thousands of Ontario jobs were preserved.

Bombardier also owes much of it success with the federal government to its unofficial status as a Chosen Instrument.

Chosen Instruments are private sectors companies in Canada who enjoy the status of quasi-crown corporations. By blending their private interests with the public interest, they are seen by generations of government officials as instruments of the national interest. Because these companies support the "national interest", the government goes out of its way to support these companies and their interests. Over time, it can be argued that Chosen Instruments do receive "better" treatment from government than many other companies.

In addition to Bombardier, potential candidates for Chosen Instrument status, past and present, might include: The Big Six Banks, BCE, CAE, Canadian Airlines, Canadian Marconi, Canadian Pacific, Computing Devices, Dome Petroleum, General Motors Diesel, Nortel, Oerlikon, Pratt & Whitney Canada, Trans Canada Telephone Systems, Trans Canada Pipeline, Syncrude, etc.

The principle features of Chosen Instruments seem to be:

The choice implicit in the concept of Chosen Instruments is mutual. Chosen Instruments take government seriously. They owe a substantial portion of their business success and shareholder value to their management of the government factor. Their expertise with government is used to create a significant competitive advantage for themselves.
Chosen Instruments tend to be politically adept. Even more important to their long-term success is their maintenance of links to the public service, usually aided by their openness to cherry-picking the public service for key employees.
Canadian ownership is not an absolute requirement but it certainly helps. Nationalism provides a strong motivation for supporting Chosen Instruments.
The companies tend to be market leaders in their field or minimally the Canadian market leaders. Since Canadian market leaders tend to be smaller global players, this provides one of the main rationales for the government’s support.
The list of Chosen Instruments tends to skew towards defence companies. To a great extent, what used to be described as the military/ industrial complex has evolved into a commercial/military/industrial complex. Because issues of transportation, communication and resource development have always been crucial in Canada, there are Chosen Instruments in all these sectors.
Canada tends to have Chosen Instruments in those sectors in which other countries favor and subsidize their own Chosen Instruments. Favoring certain companies can be a protective reaction to similar practices in other countries.
Sometimes Chosen Instruments congregate around certain departments. DND has the largest number, Heritage Canada has a few. Others can be provincially based; for example, Fisheries Products International in Newfoundland or the Wheat Pools in Saskatchewan.
Chosen Instruments are subject to trends and some fall by the wayside over time. In the late seventies, it was energy development and mega projects – Remember Dome Petroleum? Currently, high tech electronics is in vogue.
The most remarkable feature of the government’s policy of supporting Chosen Instruments is that the policy remains unwritten, unacknowledged and, at least partially unconscious.

Successive generations of officials have supported this policy and successive ministers of various ideological biases have bought into the policy. It is one of the few consistent themes of post-war industrial policy in Canada and the closest the federal government has come to having a coherent industrial strategy.

The policy remains unarticulated because it is controversial! If government picks winners then, by definition, it is also picking losers. Determining where the public and private interests meet is an inherently subjective exercise and open to argument.

The Canadian Government’s predilection to support Chosen Instruments has had remarkable longevity but there are a few question marks on the horizon.

Successive budget cuts means less money to subsidize business. The trend also is away from direct grants towards recoverable loans.
An increasingly liberalized trading environment places more limitations on the federal government’s ability to play favorites. The WTO recent slap on the wrist the Bombardier subsidies is an illustration. This trend will continue.
Globalization blurs national identity as a relevant indicator of corporate behavior because it inevitably leads to global loyalties and obligations. Bombardier provides a good illustration of this. Its new long range, high speed business jet is a joint venture between Japanese, French, United Kingdom, German and US companies. This certainly makes for a more complicated "Canadian benefits" test.

Who should the federal government favor? A Canadian company out-sourcing its manufacturing globally or a foreign company creating jobs here. We can expect more of a policy debate on this issue in the future.

This debate is occurring elsewhere. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich’s article Who is Us? Who is Them? made the argument that it is not reasonable to expect global companies to maintain national loyalties. His policy recommendation is that countries support their competitive advantage by investing in their work force instead of their multi-nationals. A recent OECD Letter stated:

"In many cases imported product contains a higher proportion of local content (tangible and intangible) than a competing domestic product. For this reason attempts to tilt the playing field in favor of domestic firms through discriminatory trade measures...or preferential treatment may become arbitrary and can be harmful to the economic interests of the country imposing the measures."

Conclusions:

While there are good reasons to think it will be less profitable to be a Chosen Instrument in the future, there is no reason to believe they will disappear. Given the role of government in our economy, there is inevitability to the existence of Chosen Instruments.

It is at least as important to pay attention to the government’s unwritten practices on industrial policy as those which find their way into formal policy documents. Companies who are not "chosen" could probably learn a thing or two about dealing with government from those that are.

Who's Scott Proudfoot? Michael Moore's brother?

 

[DaveB]

Who's Scott Proudfoot? Michael Moore's brother?

Theresa Spence's cousin.....

 

[teeroy]

no, quite happy and content actually....why?

because you're ranting. remember who owned market share up until model year 2003? sure wasn't 'doo with all that gov't money.

 

[snopro]

Boy I'm tired of this conversation. It seems every year it rears its ugly head. Yes Bombardier received handouts back in the day. Most in the form of interest free loans so that they could compete with other aircraft companies in the world who are heavily subsidized by there governments. All loans have been paid back in full. This is the same scenario as Canadian grain farmers receive with interest free operating loans each year from what was the Canadian Wheat Board and is now the Canadian Canola Growers Association. These loans, like Bombardier's in the past must be repayed or interest will accrue. The grain loans last one crop year. If you want to talk actual handouts then start a thread on the governments handouts to GM and Dodge. That may have more merit to your argument CAT 401.

 

[Cat401]

or stupid.

The recreation products division has always been profitable. It was the planes and trains that dragged them down.

true....but would they be as strong as they are today without the free cash?

Thats all I am pointing out here guys....I'm not mad....not angry.....or crazy..lol

We all hate Canada Post and CBC because of all the subsidizing they get but yet when I bring up all the times that Bombardier has been to the trough....you guys get cranky....

I'm not bashing any product although I could cuz its fun...lol

Just making an observation and wondering where would this company be without the government support?

 

[maxwell]

I don't give a fawk where the money comes from let's see the new sleds

 

[Nitrobkr]

I don't give a fawk where the money comes from let's see the new sleds

X2! Who gives two chits about "What If"... What if we had more snow or what if we weren't working right now... Would we be sledding?

 

[Wilk INStheWEST]

Yes, I know that they split in 2003.....just sick of hearing from you guys that BRP never rcvd govt handouts.....maybe not since 2003 but definately got a few truckloads of cash before.
A few million given to any company would probably make them highly profiatbale in the future....kind of a no brainer....

Bombardier received government handouts. BRP is a separate company. Therefore, BRP never received government handouts. kind of a no brainer. Doesn't matter what happened before the recreational division was purchased from Bombardier, because it was all considered Bombardier. So, we are right when we say that BRP has never received government handouts.

 

[Cat401]

Who's Scott Proudfoot? Michael Moore's brother?

hillwatch.com


Hillwatch Team of Experienced Government Relations and E-Service Consultants


Scott Proudfoot, Principal:
30 years in government and government relations. Worked for Cabinet Minister. Trade Advisor to European Common Market. Investigative Researcher. Dalhousie (B.A. Hon. Political Science and Economics); Carleton (M.A. Political Science); and Thunderbird (M.A. International Management).




Hillwatch Inc. is a full service government relations firm. We combine traditional advocacy strengths with the latest digital campaigning techniques. Hillwatch Inc. concentrates on developing winning strategies, solving client problems and creating new business opportunities. We are trusted advisors and strong advocates who craft win/win solutions.

We have a passion for learning. This is reflected in our deep knowledge about how government works. It is reflected in our use of new digital campaigning technologies to enhance traditional govenrment relations strategies and in our determination to understand your business and address your organization's bottom-line needs.

 

[Wilk INStheWEST]

true....but would they be as strong as they are today without the free cash?

Thats all I am pointing out here guys....I'm not mad....not angry.....or crazy..lol

We all hate Canada Post and CBC because of all the subsidizing they get but yet when I bring up all the times that Bombardier has been to the trough....you guys get cranky....

I'm not bashing any product although I could cuz its fun...lol

Just making an observation and wondering where would this company be without the government support?

I hate CBC because with all the government money they get, they still can't manage to put together anything decent. Even HNIC has turned into a pile of crap.

 

[CUSO]

The Canadian aerospace industry would be tits up, thousands of jobs would have been lost. The company would have had to sell their profitable recreations dept anyways to recoup to the creditors.



As for Dodge and Chevy bailouts, it was necessary too. Something like 3,000,000 jobs in the U.S. rely on the auto industry.

true....but would they be as strong as they are today without the free cash?


Thats all I am pointing out here guys....I'm not mad....not angry.....or crazy..lol

We all hate Canada Post and CBC because of all the subsidizing they get but yet when I bring up all the times that Bombardier has been to the trough....you guys get cranky....

I'm not bashing any product although I could cuz its fun...lol

Just making an observation and wondering where would this company be without the government support?