Canada Invokes Rarely Used Law in Row with U.S.

The Globe and Mail is reporting Canada Invokes Rarely Used Law in a dispute with the U.S. over Buy America protectionism.

The Canadian government signed an order Monday under the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, barring companies from complying with the requirement that only U.S. steel be used on the project in Prince Rupert, B.C., Trade Minister Ed Fast said.
“We have been clear: the application of protectionist Buy America provisions on Canadian soil is unacceptable and an affront to Canadian sovereignty,” Mr. Fast said in a statement.

Fast also said:

“We are prepared to exercise this order to defend Canadian interests,”

Hmmm. They invoke this law on Buy America protectionism but they wouldn`t do it to “defend Canadian interests.” or citizens for FATCA.
Instead, the Cons passed a law violating all other Canadian laws for an extraterritorial law on Canadian soil.
They weren’t concerned about “an affront to Canadian sovereignty” when Con Mike Allen said:

“Congress has spoken.”

I will send this to Joe Arvay. One more reason to donate to the ADCS lawsuit fund.

3 thoughts on “Canada Invokes Rarely Used Law in Row with U.S.

  1. I do not agree with this agreement. As I said before , the Harper government must be defeated in the next eletion. Harper and his government is being controlled or influenced by the US government. Remember the US government will not sign an agreenment with anyother nation unless it benefits the USA more than the nation it is signing the agreenmen with.
    Futher plans as I have read in books is for the USA to control all of North America.

  2. On a similar note, last year the Quebec Supreme Court ruled against the chartered banks in their quest to be exempt from provincial credit card legislation on the grounds that they are federally regulated. The court ruled that being federally regulated was not a green light to ignore the provincial laws in provinces where they operate, in this case Quebec. That being the case, the same argument could be made that they cannot ignore provincial privacy acts simply because they are federally regulated. Incidentally, when I complained to the BC Privacy Commissioner, I received back a nice form letter explaining why they could not act, and that reason was because banks are federally regulated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *