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: <1989Aug10.122150.5585@tmsoft.uucp>
Date: 10 Aug 89 12:21:50 GMT
References: <1989Aug7.192704.26849@tmsoft.uucp> <618593503.8039@myrias.com> <1989Aug9.023153.4191@tmsoft.uucp> <618720988.19101@myrias.com>
Reply-To: mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason)
Followup-To: can.general
Distribution: can
Organization: TM Software Associates, Toronto
Lines: 44

In article <618720988.19101@myrias.com> dbf@myrias.com (David Ferrier) writes:
>In article <1989Aug9.023153.4191@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (I) wrote:
>>Annex 301.2(4) (pp 22-23) reads:
>>[....]
Sorry, an important point (alluded to, but obfuscated by my worthy
opponent in this debate) was missing from this:
	*Final assembly* *must* take place in the US/Canada.  This final
	assembly must be sufficient to change the class of the goods.
	In other words, assembling stuffed printed circuit boards into
	a computer backplane would certainly qualify, but pressing and
	packaging a shirt would not.
This in no way changes the claims made in the original article: $490
worth of U.S. parts, $500 worth of Mexican labour, $10 worth of U.S.
labour doing final assembly makes for a U.S. made product that will be
duty free coming into Canada under the FTA.

>Nonsense. What this really means is clearly explained a few pages earlier,
>in the explanatory notes accompanying the text of the Agreement:
>
>	"The rules of interpretation in Annex 301 make clear that goods
>	that are further processed in a third country before being
>	shipped to their final destination would not qualify for area
>	treatment even if they meet the rule of origin. For example

Note that explanatory notes are just that: notes added by Canadian
trade people to help explain *their interpretation* of the legally
binding agreement.  An arbitrator (or U.S. judge) might not agree,
although one would certainly hope they would.

>If that's not clear enough, maybe the following excerpt from an
>April 1988 Saturday Night book review of If You Love This Country
>will help:
>	[...]...any product whose final
>	assembly does not occur in either the United States or
>	Canada will not be covered by the deal.

Quoting from a book review as a definitive interpretation of a legally
binding international agreement is laughable!!!

>Again, how many times need it be said?

Again, until *WE* get it right.

	../Dave