Ottawa enforces rare law to halt "Buy America" @ PR Terminal


#1

The federal government is going to invoke the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, used only once in Canadian history, to prevent the state of Alaska from imposing the “Buy America” clause to rebuild their Alaska Ferry Terminal on the PR waterfront. Looks like there is going to be a very big fight on this one…one that ultimately could potentially cost the city our Alaska Ferry Terminal and potential loss of thousands of travelers.

theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e22517328/


#2

If the shoe was on the other foot, holy hell there would be moans & cries from them.
Screw them, let them take their ball and go home.


#3

[quote=“crip75”]If the shoe was on the other foot, holy hell there would be moans & cries from them.
Screw them, let them take their ball and go home.[/quote]

I agree - if this was happening on American soil, it would be a national crisis.

I support the move by our federal government here, but at the same time, this could ultimately be damaging to our city’s economy if Alaska decides to just scrap the terminal plans.


#4

Territorial integrity is above all the most important.


#5

I wouold hope that when construction actually takes place, that asian steel will not be used.

Ken


#6

An American terminal
Built on Canadian soil
Using FTW
Material from China

Very Canadian eh!


#7

Don’t know what you’re on to, but ok.


#8

The State of Alaska is basically ignoring the measures taken place by Ottawa and will be pushing forward with their plans to accept calls for tender on their new ferry terminal/dock at Prince Rupert. They also warned they are prepared to run the terminal as is for the next several years if they need to, while the issues between the Canadian and American governments are worked out.

theglobeandmail.com/report-o … e22541664/


#9

They gave up… “for the time being”.

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … minal.html
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2927201


#10

[quote=“PLA”]They gave up… “for the time being”.

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … minal.html
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2927201[/quote]

We shall see how this impacts Prince Rupert over the long-term…ultimately I would rather see them use their buy-America clause and secure a 50 year commitment to our city, rather than have us lose our terminal whenever Alaska determines the current dock to be unusable. The local economy is the #1 most important factor for me.

The “Buy America” thing totally is ridiculous when trying to be enforced on Canadian land…but at the same time Prince Rupert tourism would be very much impacted by a decision to abandon the city completely if push back from Ottawa remains too much for Alaska.


#11

[quote=“bthedog”]

[quote=“PLA”]They gave up… “for the time being”.

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … minal.html
cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c … -1.2927201[/quote]

We shall see how this impacts Prince Rupert over the long-term…ultimately I would rather see them use their buy-America clause and secure a 50 year commitment to our city, rather than have us lose our terminal whenever Alaska determines the current dock to be unusable. The local economy is the #1 most important factor for me.

The “Buy America” thing totally is ridiculous when trying to be enforced on Canadian land…but at the same time Prince Rupert tourism would be very much impacted by a decision to abandon the city completely if push back from Ottawa remains too much for Alaska.[/quote]

I agree with what you wrote, but I also can’t see them abandoning Rupert. Because of the Jones Act the ferry has to make a stop in Canada, and I can’t see them leaving for any other coastal community.


#12

Last poster said that the ferry would have to stop in a BC port…they already sail from Seattle to Alaska…the Jones act only applies to a foreign flag vessel.


#13

You are correct. I was thinking about cruise ships.


#14

^
I was gonna say I don’t think they “HAVE” to stop here…but it certainly benefits the State of Alaska because it connects them to Highway 16, which connects them to the Lower 48.


#15

so we lose the Alaska Ferry termimal upgrade because they wanted to use only US Steel and Harper and the gang wanted that provision taken out, why so they can use Chinese made steel? and where was our MP on this?
nathancullen.com/news/article/cu … upert_term

way to stand up for us in Prince RUpert Nathan, oh wait you didn’t, you stood up for chinese and ontario steel makers


#16

Nathan Cullen is standing up for his own political gain, don’t be fooled…he doesn’t represent this city for the betterment of our economy…yet others continue to blindly elect him…so can we really be mad?


#17

Don’t worry, there may be slightly better choices this election year if Tyler Nesbitt gets in. Hopefully the Liberals didn’t send in another lame candidate this time, but I highly doubt they’ll even try make an effort in this riding.

Then there’s the Green Party if you gave up on the big three…


#18

you can put up anyone you want for this riding, but in the end the NDP will get in even if Charles Manson was running


#19

Surrender Monkeys. Quislings.


#20

I voted for Cullen in 2011. I’m not so sure he will get my vote this year. I’m more likely to vote for Hondo this time around.