政府采购法律和政策(二):加拿大(中)

II.关于“购买美国货”的规定

美国复苏与再投资法案（ARRA）中的经济刺激政策包总体上要求，依据法案投资的建设和公共工程项目中所用的钢材、铁和工业制成品都应当是在合众国生产的。2009年4月3日，（美国）管理和预算办公室（OMB）就复苏法案中的“购买美国货”条款实施问题发布了指导意见。就此直接影响加拿大的指导意见规定，（加拿大）国会研究服务机构的伊恩·弗格森发表评论说：

“可能是因为加拿大省级和地区都没有接受GPA框架下的任何义务，管理和预算办公室（OMB）将加拿大排除在美国各州依据GPA承担国际义务的国家之列以外。这意味着，美国根据再投资法案用联邦的钱投资的各州和地方项目，没有必要采用与GPA框架下的义务相符的优惠方式对待加拿大公司。这样，在参与美国各州和地方政府使用美国联邦刺激基金兴办的公共工程所使用的钢铁和工业制成品项目投标时，加拿大公司很可能无缘竞投。然而，GPA框架下美国的义务确实对加拿大公司参与美国ARRA出资的联邦采购项目投标起作用，加拿大公司可以参与哪些项目合同的竞争。尽管这样，加拿大媒体上还是出现过一些有意思的报道：美国合同方和供应商为了避免‘购买美国货’条款的烦扰，在某些采购项目中越来越多地选择国内合作者。”

美国复苏和再投资法案中包含的“购买美国货”规定，在加拿大引起了极大的担心，美国越来越多的保护主义是众目所见。这种担心在2009年9月加拿大总理访问华盛顿会见美国总统和国会领袖时，得到了或许是最完美的展现：讨论一项能为加拿大供应商带来新一轮高潮的提议。历任加拿大总理对美国国会山并不出人意外，但这次哈珀总理却异乎寻常地强调了这一问题对加拿大的重要性。

五大湖周围集中了美加两国主要工业制造业，成为美加贸易重要通道

虽然美国人回答说，复苏法案和随后的实施条例都写明，要“与美国加入WTO《政府采购协定》的国际义务，以及美国的自由贸易协定包括NAFTA等规定相一致"，但这些不是一种新形式的保护主义。美国已经指定一位贸易谈判代表探寻一种替代方案，大致将加拿大供应商包括进复苏和再投资法案的范围内。

对加拿大抱怨者的批评者也严厉谴责了加拿大各省目前不同意将自己包括进GPA和北美自贸协定的问题。美加贸易关系专家克里斯托弗·桑兹宣称他建议“加拿大官员们与奥巴马政府做一个‘壮士断腕’的生意，因为他们处理‘购买美国货’争议的方式（不能令人满意）”。加拿大官员们认识到，他们不将各省和地方政府加入GPA和NAFTA是一个错误。然而，如前所述，从对各省公平的角度讲，并不清楚将各省和地方政府包括进GPA和NAFTA，能否给加拿大供应商带来更多ARRA方案资助的合同利益，因为GPA和NAFTA的条款中都允许（各省和地方）做出联邦授权的例外规定。

2010年6月，哈珀总理建议各省修改其采购法，允许美国供应商的商品和服务享有NAFTA政府采购条款有关优惠。省级采购市场对美国公司开放的边界尚不清楚，因为很多省市的限制是采用的政策的形式，更多地取决于个人招投标者而不是写在纸上的法条。而且，加拿大市长联盟也在2010年6月以189票对175票通过决议，禁止对加拿大商品施加贸易限制国家的公司参与投标。这是无附加前提的决议，但是暗示很多加拿大市长相信加拿大公司应该允许参加美国ARRA资金赞助的货物和服务采购项目，虽然加拿大并未列入GPA和NAFTA并未覆盖其次中央实体和中央政府授权的次中央实体国家之列。加拿大市长联盟的这项决议在加拿大通过媒体广泛传播，但被加拿大中央政府视为一种抗议的表达，而非最终能对美国供应商起到明显作用的重大努力。[!--empirenews.page--]

唯一一位对哈珀总理签署一项双边组采购协议的要求立刻做出积极回应的省级领导人是魁北克省省长。魁北克省对保守党联邦领导人的支持是出人意料的，因为虽然该省是自由党政府，但魁北克传统上一直是NAFTA的强有力支持者，部分因为该省拥有相对强大的制造业基础。通常对哈珀总理的提议反对声浪最高的群体是有组织的劳工，例如，2009年8月，加拿大汽车工人协会主席号召其他省份的省长们拒绝一项联邦提议，该提议可能取消或限制各省制定有利于加拿大经济的地方政策的权力。他所代表的各种劳工组织发布了一项声明，内容如下：

“不是要去攻击成功且广受欢迎的‘购买美国货’政策，加拿大政府应该增加投资，迅速设立基金支持公共基础设施，并为这些基金项目贴上‘购买加拿大货’的标签。

我们反对将NAFTA扩展到所有的次国家级采购，反对与欧盟国家谈判缔结‘自由贸易’协定的任何努力，这也会把所有次国家级政府绑到与NAFTA类似的各种限制中。这些办法将吸干加拿大经济的活力，恶化制造业目前的危机，并且干扰省级政府提供和规范地方服务的权威性。”

这份声明由加拿大汽车工人协会、加拿大劳工大会、加拿大公共就业联盟、钢铁工人联合会、六个省级和地方劳工联合组织以及其他5各工会组织签署。这份声明没有讨论的一个问题是，有组织的劳工们所相信的加拿大制造业目前正从省市级的“购买加拿大货”政策和项目中收益，其边界到什么程度。

2009年12月4日，加拿大媒体报道说：“关于‘购买美国货’争议的处理还有很长一段路要走……但是新的法令正在取得进步，贸易保护主义者的条款正在付诸实施，将最终惠及加拿大。”然而，2010年1月28日，《国家邮报》就刊登了一篇题为《“购买美国货”末日将近》的新闻稿，这篇文章说：

“奥巴马政府内部消息称，一项带有‘购买美国货’内容的协议即将终结，数日内将宣布这一消息。据说奥巴马总统认为未来经济增正的解决之道只能是通过繁荣出口、保持开放市场来取得，而不能通过提高关税壁垒获取。

因为奥巴马先生不能依赖国会通过把加拿大排除在‘购买美国货’规定之外的立法案，这项复杂的工作全靠总统行使执行权，对加拿大经济部门和美国部门一视同仁，这就要求供应链条团结一体而不是一盘散沙。如果这一消息得以证实，该协议将使在美国境内做生意的加拿大公司大大松一口气，更不用提哪些以美国为基地向北部边境出口的公司。因为美国复苏和再投资法案包括所有的钢铁和工业制成品，只要是用复苏计划的资金支付的项目，所用物资必须是在美国境内生产的。”

这篇文章包含的信息并没有立即得到政府官员的确认，也没有其他新闻机构同样报道过。然而，2010年2月5日，几个新闻机构报道，一项有关“购买美国货”的政策即将公布。据《国家邮报》的保尔·维埃拉报道，作为开放市场的回报，加拿大供应商将获得美国政府采购市场的准入，可以在GPA覆盖的37个州得以参加ARRA资金项目的招投标。然而，（加拿大）各省仍然受到（美国）卫生保健、教育和矫正设施等领域对外国投标者设置的限制。由于这个政策在ARRA资金项目方面仍受限制，更广泛协议的谈判正在进行。[!--empirenews.page--]

获准进入加拿大省级政府采购市场的好处，对美国供应商来说是很明显的，算上例外行业，该市场估计价值大约在1800万美元。

原文：

II. Buy American Legislation

The economic stimulus package included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) generally requires that iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the construction of public works projects funded by the Act are to be made in the United States.[30]  On April 3, 2009, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidelines on implementing the Buy American provisions of the ARRA.[31]  Ian Fergusson of the Congressional Research Service has summarized the provisions of the guidelines that directly affect Canada as follows:

Likely because Canadian provinces and territories have not undertaken any obligations under the AGP, OMB excluded Canada from the list of countries to which U.S. states participating in the AGP have international obligations.  This means that for state and local projects funded by federal money from the stimulus bill, there is no obligation to treat Canadian firms in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under the AGP.  Thus, Canadian firms would be ineligible to bid on contracts for iron, steel, and manufactured products procured for public works projects undertaken by state and local governments using federal stimulus money.  However, U.S. obligations under the AGP do extend to Canadian firms bidding on federal procurement funded by the ARRA, and Canadian firms would be able to bid for those contracts.  Nonetheless, there have been several anecdotal reports in the Canadian press that U.S. contractors and suppliers are increasingly choosing to source domestically in order not to be hassled with complying with Buy American provisions in certain procurements.[32]

The inclusion of the Buy American provisions in the ARRA program has raised great concern at the highest levels in Canada about what is widely seen as rising protectionism in the U.S.  This concern was perhaps best demonstrated when, in September of 2009, the Prime Minister traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with the President and Congressional leaders, to discuss proposals that would result in a waiver for Canadian suppliers.[33]  Visits to Capitol Hill by prime ministers are not unprecedented, but they are unusual and Prime Minister Harper’s visit emphasized the importance of the issue to Canada.[34]

Although the U.S. has responded that “the language of the [ARRA] and subsequent implementing regulations were written to be consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and U.S. free trade agreements including NAFTA,”[35] and that they were not a new form of protectionism,[36] it has appointed a negotiator to explore various alternatives to largely excluding Canadian suppliers from ARRA funds.

Critics of the Canadian complaints have largely blamed the current problem on Canada’s provinces for not agreeing to bind themselves to the AGP and NAFTA.[37]  Christopher Sands, a leading expert on Canada-U.S. trade relations, has reportedly suggested that “Canadian officials ‘have done themselves a great deal of damage’ with the Obama administration for the way they’ve handled the Buy American dispute,”[38] and that Canadian officials now realize that they made a mistake in not adding the provinces to the AGP or NAFTA.[39]  However, as mentioned above, in fairness to the provinces, it is not clear that their inclusion in the AGP or NAFTA would have guaranteed Canadian suppliers more ARRA-funded contracts, because of the provisions of the AGP and NAFTA that allow set-asides for federal grants.

In June 2010, Prime Minister Harper asked Canada’s provinces to modify their procurement laws to allow U.S. suppliers of goods and services the benefits of the government procurement provisions of NAFTA.[40]  The extent to which provincial procurement markets are closed to U.S. firms is not clear because many provincial and municipal restrictions are in the form of policies or are inserted into individual tenders rather than into written laws.  Also, in June 2010, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities voted 189 to 175 to bar bids from companies whose countries impose trade restrictions against Canada.[41]  This was a nonbinding resolution, but indicates that many Canadian municipalities believed that Canadian firms should have been allowed to bid on goods and services funded by the ARRP even though Canada’s provinces are not listed in the AGP and NAFTA does not cover subcentral entities or grants to subcentral entities by national governments.  The actions of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities received widespread media coverage in Canada, but was seen by the federal government of Canada as being more of an expression of disapproval than an effort that would ultimately have a significant impact upon U.S. suppliers.[42][!--empirenews.page--]

The only provincial leader to immediately respond positively to the Prime Minister’s request for support of a bilateral agreement on government procurement was the Premier of Quebec.[43]  Quebec’s support for the Conservative federal leader was not unexpected because even though it has a Liberal government, Quebec has traditionally been the strongest supporter of NAFTA, in part because it has a relatively large manufacturing base.  The group that generally opposed the Prime Minister’s request most vocally was organized labor.  For example, in August 2009, the president of the Canadian autoworkers called on the other premiers to reject federal proposals that would eliminate or restrict the provinces’ right to establish purchasing policies intended to benefit the Canadian economy.[44]  The diverse labor groups he represented issued a statement, which read as follows:

Rather than attacking these successful and popular “Buy American” policies, Canadian governments should increase and speed up funding for public infrastructure projects and attach “Buy Canadian” conditions to the funding.[45]

We oppose expanding NAFTA to cover all sub-national procurement and the related effort to negotiate a “free trade” deal with the European Union that would also bind sub-national governments to NAFTA-like restrictions.  This approach would drain needed stimulus from the Canadian economy, worsen the current crisis in manufacturing and interfere with provincial governments’ authority to provide and regulate local services.

This statement was signed by the Canadian Auto Workers, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the United Steel Workers, six provincial and territorial Federations of Labour, and five other labor organizations.[46]  One issue the statement does not discuss is the extent to which organized labor believes that Canadian manufacturers are currently benefiting from provincial and municipal “buy Canadian” policies or programs.

On December 4, 2009, the Canadian Press reported that “a deal on the Buy American trade dispute is still a long way off … but progress is being made on new rules regarding the implementation of the protectionist provisions that could ultimately benefit Canada.”[47]  However, on January 28, 2010, the National Post ran a story entitled “End Near for ‘Buy American.’”[48]  This article stated as follows:

Sources within the Obama administration say that an agreement to fix Buy American is close to being concluded and could be announced within days.  The President is said to be resolved that future economic growth can only be achieved by boosting exports and keeping markets open, rather than by raising tariff walls.

Because Mr. Obama cannot rely on Congress to pass legislation exempting Canada from Buy American provisions, the complicated deal will rely on the President using his executive power to treat sectors of the Canadian economy as American, by claiming supply chains are so integrated they cannot be separated.

When confirmed, the agreement will be a major relief for Canadian companies doing business in the United States, not to mention for U.S.-based companies who export north of the border.  The U.S. Recovery and Reinvestment Act included sections that all iron, steel and manufactured goods used in projects paid for by stimulus funding must be sourced in the United States.[49]

The information contained in this article was not immediately confirmed by government officials or reported by other news organizations.  However, on February 5, 2010, a number of news organizations reported that a deal on the Buy American provisions is to be announced soon.  According to Paul Viera of the National Post, in return for opening their markets, the Canadian suppliers will have access to the government procurement market and will be able to bid on programs and projects funded by the ARRA in the thirty-seven states covered by the AGP.  However, the provinces will reportedly retain restrictions on foreign bids in the fields of health care, education, and correctional facilities.  While the deal is reportedly limited to programs and projects funded by the ARRA, negotiations on a broader agreement are continuing.[50][!--empirenews.page--]

Access to the provincial government procurement market could be highly significant to U.S. suppliers.  That market has been estimated as being worth approximately US$18 million, including the excluded sectors.[51]