I’ve been watching news of the North American Free Trade Agreement with interest, because I believe I made a mistake when I first supported it in one of my very first This is the Life columns nearly 30 years ago.
I was heartened by a recent economic analysis that indicates that there will be some negative impact on the Canadian economy if the current negotiations lead to a collapse of the deal. Negative but not nearly as much as we might believe, was the conclusion, and freeing because it allows us to negotiate other deals on our own, presumably better, terms.
I thought, during the years of negotiation running up to the 1994 agreement, that NAFTA would be a sign that Canada was ready to play with the big boy to the south instead of being bullied. And the eventual deal sort of seemed like that’s how it was working out, with side deals on automotive, agricultural and forest industries giving some semblance of protection.
It didn’t take long, though, for me to understand that “free trade” is never free. It did not apply to the likes of you and me, of course, as we are reminded when we arrive at the Canadian border from the US with more than two bottles of wine or more than one bottle of liquor or with goods valued more than a relatively small amount. “Come on in and bring your receipts” was an indication that we were about to get a first hand lesson in how free trade works for corporations, but not individuals.
And how often have we been reminded over the years that NAFTA did not relieve us from the anxiety of continued threats to shut down auto plants, or from the slapping on of ridiculous tariffs on lumber exports. Nor did it prevent the ridiculous practice of exporting raw logs and live cattle, giving away thousands of jobs in the bargain.
More than anything, though, what really stuck in my craw was that the arrangement provided a means for foreign businesses to sue our own federal government if they didn’t think they were getting a fair shot at doing business here. NAFTA, for me, became the Anti-Sovereignty Agreement, the great Canadian sellout of the ability to make laws and decisions designed to better not only our economy, but our nationhood. Seriously, what kind of banana republic gives up the ability to manage activity within its own borders?
Personally, I’d be much happier with no deal instead of one that sacrifices sovereignty, especially with a country that cries like a baby when it looks, say, at our stumpage system for logging on Crown land and cries foul about the perceived subsidy of the industry, and then denies that its own endless subsidies to big business and agriculture don’t tilt the competitive world in its own favour.
Nope. You want our oil? Here’s the price. You want our water? Here’s our price. You want our agricultural products? Here’s our price. You want to cross our border? Here’s our rules. You want to pour your movies and television and Internet services into our country? Here’s our rules.
Don’t like our border security or immigration policies? Build a wall. Which, by the way, you are paying for. And nothing and no one is passing through it unless it’s in our best economic and sovereign interests.