US President Barack Obama’s proposed new $447 billion American Jobs Act is aimed at creating much-needed jobs in the United States, but it’s also reigniting trade tensions between the country and Canada, its biggest trading partner.
September 14, 2011
by CANADIAN PRESS
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama’s proposed new $447 billion American Jobs Act is aimed at creating much-needed jobs in the US, but it’s also reigniting trade tensions between the country and Canada, its biggest trading partner.
Trade Minister Ed Fast said Canada will fight the Buy America provisions in the new US stimulus package.
Fast said in a release that the provisions are not acceptable to Canada. He has instructed officials to initiate the consultation process that was established as part of the 2010 Canada-US deal on government procurement.
He said Ottawa will also express its concerns to the White House and to Congress.
The act, released in full by the White House this week, contains yet another protectionist Buy American provision of the type that strained the Canada-US relationship for much of 2009.
Those who closely watch the Canada-US trade relationship were crestfallen to see Section 4, with its heading “Buy American – Use of American Iron, Steel and Manufactured Goods.”
The section contains a directive that none of the funds made available by the American Jobs Act may be used for “the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.’’
The bill would commit more than $100 billion towards the renovation of schools, the construction of roads and bridges and improving transit.
There are some exceptions to the Buy American provisions, however. The act states that if using all-American products increases the cost of the project by more than 25%, the requirement will be waived. So too if the goods needed for the project aren’t manufactured or available in the US. But a fair amount of time-consuming red tape must be hacked through in order to receive such a waiver.
“If the head of a federal department or agency determines that it is necessary to waive the application … the head of the department or agency shall publish in the Federal Register a detailed written justification as to why the provision is being waived,’’ the act reads.
Section 4 concludes by insisting it “shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.’’
Gary Doer, Canada’s US envoy, and David Jacobson, the US ambassador to Canada, faced questions about the new provisions at a two-day Canada-US manufacturing summit presented by Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in the US.
“We obviously believe in maintaining trade between our two countries …. and that’s the position we’ll take again in Washington if we need to,’’ Doer said.
Jacobson said he hadn’t seen the language in the American Jobs Act. But he said such legislation is “intricately complicated’’ and depending on the wording of the bill, it might not be something Canada needs to worry about.
At the summit, Jacobson called the Canada-US trade relationship the top item of international business in the American capital, saying “a huge amount of time’’ is being spent on easing trade between the two countries at the highest levels of government – including the White House.
Jacobson was referring to the long-awaited perimeter security deal, billed as an effort to boost cross-border trade and reduce congestion without compromising security.
“Particularly in my country, people understand that if we’re going to move the needle on exports and on trade, and on jobs that are dependent on export and trade, we’re going to have a lot more bang for our buck by focusing on Canada,’’ he said.
In Ottawa, the prime minister’s office wouldn’t comment on the Obama administration’s new Buy American provisions in detail except to stay the Canadian government will “continue to oppose protectionism and defend Canadian interest.’’
“History has shown protectionist measures stall growth and kill jobs,’’ a Harper spokesman said.
Birgit Matthiesen, the US representative of the CME, expressed her dismay about the provisions given how hard Canadian officials worked two years ago to convince their American counterparts of the dangers inherent in hindering trade and commerce between two economies so closely linked.
“It’s this de facto Buy American sentiment now that is so disappointing and frustrating,’’ she said in an interview from Montreal.
“It’s really disconcerting that this administration and the US Senate seem to have decided that Buy America had to be inserted into this bill, ignoring our concerns that we’ve expressed so strongly previously and the reasons why we expressed those concerns.’’
Maryscott Greenwood, an international trade specialist at the McKenna, Long law firm in DC, predicted the bill will likely pass US Congress in some form given the urgency of the job situation in the US right now. She added there’s no guarantee Section 4 will be removed by either Republicans or Democrats with a presidential election a little more than a year away.
“I think some version of it will get through, and Canada will have to press for a waiver,’’ she said. “It means that Canadian business interests must remain vigilant in continually explaining to US policy-makers the interconnectedness of our two economies,’’ she added. “Canada needs to constantly point to the futility of measures that don’t take the special bilateral relationship into consideration.’’
The Buy American dispute consumed the Canada-US relationship for much of 2009 until Canada finally earned an 11th hour waiver from the Buy American provisions contained in Obama’s $787 billion stimulus act.
The deal allowed the use of Canadian products in many local US projects funded by the stimulus program. In return, Canadian provinces agreed to sign the World Trade Organization’s government procurement agreement, something they’d refused to do when the WTO was established in 1995.
That’s the only bright spot, Matthiesen said – Canadian provinces won’t be excluded this time around from bidding on projects at the state and federal level in the US.
“But if these monies get funnelled down to the municipalities and counties, then we have no protection, and the vast majority of money was spent at that level under the recovery bill,’’ she said. “Our work is really cut out for us.’’
© 2011 The Canadian Press