Trade rules unclear

Stuart Trew
Windsor Star (also, Hamilton Spectator)
March 3, 2010

Re: Trade rules help us, guest column, by Alexander Moens, Feb. 22.

If the new Canada-U.S. agreement on government procurement is so good for us, why can't International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan explain where Canadian firms stand to benefit?

It's true that the interim deal with the U.S., revealed publicly the same day it went into effect, will allow Canadian companies to bid on stimulus projects in seven areas where other countries are excluded.

But, as Alexander Moens recognized in his article, that $280 billion is almost entirely soaked up. Estimates from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives show there is only $4-$5 billion left.

But, that's not the half of it. Where U.S. cities could, under the new deal, rip Canadian-made pipes out of the ground tomorrow, or exclude Canadian suppliers with no consequence, Canadian cities and provinces are bound by legally enforceable WTO rules that U.S. firms will not shy away from using to their full effect.

These rules are not just about national treatment. They forbid the provinces from considering any other social benefit, such as minimum local content levels, local hiring or community investments, when making spending decisions. Only the bottom line counts, which will give large U.S. companies an edge over many smaller Canadian competitors.

The worst part about the new Canada-U.S. procurement agreement, and the permanent inclusion of the provinces in the WTO, is that the Harper government made an executive decision while Parliament was prorogued. The government needs to shut down its negotiations with the U.S. toward a permanent procurement deal until a full parliamentary review of the deal they just signed can be carried through.

Stuart Trew is a trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians.