Marking 20 years
of bold journalism,
reader supported.
Opinion
Politics

Canada Should Learn From Obama's Buy American Plan

Conservatives have won us few exemptions so far. Why not take a cue from the US provision?

Scott Sinclair 21 Sep 2011TheTyee.ca

Scott Sinclair is senior trade policy researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

image atom
Sinclair: There's 'a lot of misinformation' on what Buy American means for Canada-U.S. relations.

No one should be surprised that a Buy American provision has been included in the American Jobs Act, President Obama's new job creation bill. Such provisions have been standard features of U.S. infrastructure spending and procurement legislation for decades.

Despite the economic importance of this bill, there is a lot of misinformation on what it actually means with regard to Canada-U.S. relations and future international trade policies.

The Buy American provisions in the 2009 stimulus bill (the Recovery Act) and those in the current jobs bill are consistent with U.S. obligations under the NAFTA and the WTO government procurement rules.

The U.S. government has been careful to exempt its key Buy American programs -- such as laws requiring state and local governments to use U.S.-made steel on highway and construction projects funded by Washington -- from its international trade agreements.

Despite what you might hear from the Conservative government and many media reports, the 2010 Canada-U.S. Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) did not provide Canada with its sought-after exemption from the Buy American provisions in the Recovery Act.

Instead, the deal granted Canada a temporary waiver covering seven specific programs funded under the Recovery Act.

'Slim pickings' in Recovery Act contracts

The overall budget for these seven programs totalled $US 18 billion (about six per cent of the $275 billion of procurement contracts funded by the Recovery Act.) By Dec. 31, 2009, two-thirds of Recovery Act contracts had already been allocated, limiting the contracts available to Canadian suppliers to no more than $US 6 billion (just two per cent of the procurement contracts funded by the Recovery Act.).

But the value of the access granted to Canadian suppliers was actually considerably less.

By the time the Canada-U.S. deal was finally concluded in mid-February 2010, almost 90 per cent of the funds under these seven programs had already been allocated, leaving less than $US 2 billion available to Canadian suppliers.

For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that by Feb. 15, 2010, over $US 3.5 billion of the $US 4 billion allocated (87.5 per cent) under the Recovery Act to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund was already under contract. Similarly, by Feb. 15, 2010 over $US 1.8 billion of the $US 2 billion (90 per cent) allocated to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund was already under contract.

In a Feb. 16, 2010 briefing on the agreement for Quebec labour groups, a senior Quebec Ministry of Economic Development official stated that the ministry estimated the value of the unallocated funds under the seven U.S. programs at $US 1.3 billion (just 0.05 per cent of the total $US 275 billion procurement contracts funded under the Recovery Act). That figure is probably close to the mark.

In return for these slim pickings, Canadian governments made temporary commitments covering a range of municipal and Crown corporation construction, amounting to roughly $CAD 25 billion. The deal was remarkably one-sided, with the bulk of the benefits going to the U.S.

Follow US lead

Another core demand of the Canadian government when they first entered negotiations with the U.S. in the summer of 2009 was that any deal should protect Canada against Buy American rules in future U.S. legislation. As is now obvious, the Canadian government did not achieve this goal. The GPA merely provides for consultations, which are highly unlikely to lead to any change in the U.S. Buy American provisions.

The 2010 GPA failed to provide a meaningful exemption for Canadian suppliers from the Buy American provisions in the previous U.S. stimulus package. The prospects for getting a waiver from the current jobs bill are even more remote.

Buy American policies are nothing new, and the desire of the current U.S. administration to ensure that U.S. stimulus spending primarily benefits U.S. workers and manufacturing is easily understandable.

Instead of antagonizing the Obama administration by opposing its jobs initiative, Canadian governments should be enacting new stimulus measures of their own that make better use of our substantial public purchasing to boost Canadian jobs, support new industries such as renewable energy, and assist marginalized groups.

When it comes to government procurement, the U.S. has a history of bolstering its markets and jobs within both its international trade treaties and in stimulus packages. It is time Canada took the same position.

[See more Tyee political coverage.]  [Tyee]

Read more: Politics

  • Share:

Get The Tyee's Daily Catch, our free daily newsletter.

Tyee Commenting Guidelines

Comments that violate guidelines risk being deleted, and violations may result in a temporary or permanent user ban. Maintain the spirit of good conversation to stay in the discussion.
*Please note The Tyee is not a forum for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, denying its existence or minimizing its risk to public health.

Do:

  • Be thoughtful about how your words may affect the communities you are addressing. Language matters
  • Challenge arguments, not commenters
  • Flag trolls and guideline violations
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity, learn from differences of opinion
  • Verify facts, debunk rumours, point out logical fallacies
  • Add context and background
  • Note typos and reporting blind spots
  • Stay on topic

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist, homophobic or transphobic language
  • Ridicule, misgender, bully, threaten, name call, troll or wish harm on others
  • Personally attack authors or contributors
  • Spread misinformation or perpetuate conspiracies
  • Libel, defame or publish falsehoods
  • Attempt to guess other commenters’ real-life identities
  • Post links without providing context

Most Popular

Most Commented

Most Emailed

LATEST STORIES

The Barometer

Do You Agree with BC’s Decriminalization Rollback?

Take this week's poll