The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has called for [1] “open public consultation before negotiating any internal or international trade and security agreement."
CUPE and its allies helped support the resolution, which highlights the threat trade deals pose to public services.
The federation’s focus on how trade deals might constrain local governments is timely, given the debate that followed. Much of the plenary was spent debating a controversial resolution on “Buy American” provisions in US President Barack Obama’s infrastructure stimulus package.
The resolution was initiated by the Ontario community of Halton Hills, where two local companies have lost contracts they previously had in the U.S. The resolution says the federation should support cities that adopt policies that allow them to buy only from companies whose home countries do not impose trade restrictions against Canadian goods.
"Today, Canada's cities and communities joined the federal and provincial governments in a common front to try and stop American protectionism," Jean Perrault, FCM president and mayor of Sherbrooke, Que., said in a statement.
Some Canadian companies have complained they are already being affected by the "Buy American" provision, which gives priority to U.S. iron, steel and other manufactured goods for use in public works and building projects funded with recovery money.
Links:
[1] http://cupe.ca/municipalities/Local-governments-wa
[2] http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/06/mayors-resolution.html
[3] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/canadian-politics/municipalities-lead-fight-against-trade-deals-and-buy-american-policies#comment-1025207
[4] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/canadian-politics/municipalities-lead-fight-against-trade-deals-and-buy-american-policies#comment-1025225
[5] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/canadian-politics/municipalities-lead-fight-against-trade-deals-and-buy-american-policies#comment-1025231
[6] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/canadian-politics/municipalities-lead-fight-against-trade-deals-and-buy-american-policies#comment-1025732
[7] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/canadian-politics/municipalities-lead-fight-against-trade-deals-and-buy-american-policies#comment-1025888
[8] http://rabble.ca/print/babble/canadian-politics/municipalities-lead-fight-against-trade-deals-and-buy-american-policies#comment-1025889
[9] http://rabble.ca/user
[10] http://rabble.ca/user/register
Yeah, apparently our "free" trade deal with the U.S. has an exemption for state and municiple governments, who can institute "buy American" policies.
On one hand, I can understand why Americans would demand a buy American policy for the stimulus money. We've already done the same in Canada. ( Remember the OLG debacle, buying foriegn cars for prizes?)
However, given the royal screwing Canada got over softwood lumber, and how trade agreements with juristictions that are not required to have similar labour, environmental and health standards as ours have lead to a direct attack on workers and farmers here, it's difficult not to view such aggreements as traitorous acts.
"it's difficult not to view such aggreements as traitorous acts."
I would say impossible not to!
Yeah, apparently our "free" trade deal with the U.S. has an exemption for state and municiple governments, who can institute "buy American" policies.
The Buy American Act was adopted in 1933 and has been in force ever since, exempted from trade agreements.
Canada, on the other hand, has never stooped to protecting its own industry since the FTA came into being. Canadian politicians who rise up in shock at such conditions attached to U.S. stimulus spending and lobby the U.S. to drop the conditions (instead of imposing our own) are worse than traitors - they are ignoramuses.
"whose home countries do not impose trade restrictions against Canadian goods."
interesting, this point was not made at all in CBC radio news coverage of the CFM vote, that i've heard.
if it had been mentioned, it would have been obvious it was an effort towards actually freer trade (conditioned against restrictions) but instead the vote was just called protectionism.
i'd have been happy if it was straight-out protectionism. i understand that supporting the domestic economy is the only way countries have ever achieved any kind of strength.
stockwell day keeps saying protectionism started the Great Depression, but that was bankers, again. Harperites and their ilk are very good at saying lies over and over again, hoping they'll sink in like a mantra.
so someone who is more familiar with what happened in the 30's pls repeat the other side of the story..
indoors and cooking so far today, and i heard on CBC a fellow respond to this subject introduced by Rita Celli (sp?) on a morning radio program. The host tried to clarify what municipalities were doing, but the caller said we first needed an internal trade agreement between provinces. i completely disagree. this is the complete opposite of what could be considered strong domestic policy. The TILMA and AIT (Agreement on Internal Trade) have been written about at the CCPA and elsewhere, and include, as i understand, appointed unelected tribunals of a few people making decisions. that's Fraud Trade too - a system designed by and for bankers and big corporate owners to profit whilst destroying small and medium-sized businesses. they market this fraud under the auspices of allowing their employees to move around 'freely' ie. wherever corps tell them to jump next, as northern migrants, because there are no stable decent jobs in their home province.
we need focus on fair trade, public services, clean energy. no more trade masquerades.