Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!mason
From: mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: What does it mean to be a Canadian?
Message-ID: <1989Aug9.023153.4191@tmsoft.uucp>
Date: 9 Aug 89 02:31:53 GMT
References: <1989Aug7.192704.26849@tmsoft.uucp> <618593503.8039@myrias.com>
Reply-To: mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason)
Followup-To: can.general
Distribution: can
Organization: TM Software Associates, Toronto
Lines: 63

In article <618593503.8039@myrias.com> dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) writes:
>In article <1989Aug7.192704.26849@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes:
>>[referring to American owned plants in Mexico]
	In fact they can also be (and in a few cases are) Canadian
	owned, but it's much more convenient for American companies.
>>Products manufactured there and shipped into the U.S.,
>>are allowed to be labelled "made in U.S.A.", therefore, fall under the
>>free trade agreement.  The products are allowed to be labelled this
>>way because raw materials and components are imported into Mexico
>>duty-free.  
	Actually the Mexican-US duty-free arrangement has nothing
	directly to do with the FTA, it allows partial manufacture in
	ANY third country (though West Germany would be a poor choice
	for reasons you can deduce below), see quote from FTA below.
>
>NOT TRUE. The Free Trade Agreement covers ONLY goods that are
>manufactured IN Canada or the United States. As far as the Free
>[...]
>It is annoying to hear Free Trade myths like this repeated.

The worst myths are the ones in blue and white in the FTA itself, for
example Annex 301.2(4) (pp 22-23) reads:
	Notwithstanding paragraph 3 [which refers to ways things may
	stop being considered to have been made in USanada], goods
	shall nonetheless be considered to have been transformed in
	the territory of a Party and treated as goods originating in
	the territory of the Party; provided that:
	a) the value of materials originating in the territory of
	   either Party or both Parties used or consumed in the
	   production of the goods plus the direct cost of assembling
	   the goods in the territory of either Party or both Parties
	   constitute not less than 50 percent of the value of the
	   goods when exported to the territory of the other Party, and
	b) the goods have not subsequent to assembly undergone
	   processing or further assembly in a third country and they
	   meet the requirements of Article 302 [which refers to
	   transshipment].

What this means to people who don't like reading legalese is that if a
product requires 500 labour-hours to build, based on Mexican border
labour rates of $1/hr, as long as raw materials (or labour or capital
costs) from sources in the USanada cost at least $500, then the
product is deemed to be of USanada manufacture, and is fully covered
by the FTA.

Note that this is NOT just a FTA question, US unions are very unhappy
with this situation too.

>How many times does something have to be said?

Apparently until someone who has actually read the FTA relays what the
FTA actually says!

I can't believe this sometimes....I know it's the net way, but when
discussing factual issues it would be so nice if people actually
presented and discussed facts, or identified their opinions as:
	``the rabid position I've always adopted is that....''

Disclaimer:  I've adopted rabid positions before, but usually on
imponderables such as: Is there a God?  Does /usr/group/can have a
soul?  Is Clay Bond a person or a repressed AI experiment? ...
You know, the important things in life!
	../Dave