middleofnowhere

Now that it seems like we have a “stable government” (whatever that really means) here for a while, our elected leaders can start paying attention to trivial things like running the country and trying to survive the global economic crunch.

Noticing that there are actually things happening elsewhere in the world, our government has come to the harsh realization that when other countries do things to protect themselves economically, it mightn’t be the best thing for us - case in point is the fine print on some of the items in the American stimulus package being put forward by President Obama and his team/supporters.

I totally get that when you need to drum up business and support for your own industries it makes sense to put forward ideas like “buy American” - heck, I try to by local as much as possible. It’s part of being a good citizen in my opinion.

One of the things to hit our headlines recently is the premise that steel used in public projects under the $819-billion US plan must be made in the United States. The exceptions to the rule are if “the head of the federal department or agency involved finds that” the rule “would be inconsistent with the public interest,” there is insufficient U.S. iron and steel of satisfactory quality, or including U.S. iron and steel will increase the cost of the project by more than 25 per cent.

Based on existing trade agreements, many Canadian companies are crying foul. Is there going to be an issue similar to the drama of softwood lumber? Does Canada have enough clout to make a difference even if these agreements are broken? Also, how does breaking agreements affect whether or not agreements are made in the future? Or with other partners? Breaking agreements to protect your interests in the short term may play well in the polls, but long term effects can be quite serious

Trackback URI | Comments RSS