In my nearly three decades of writing this column I have written one in support of free trade. It was in the early period of negotiations that would lead to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I put forth the argument that such an agreement would be a sign that Canada had matured to the point that it could confidently compete on even ground with other nations, the US in particular.
Since then I have become jaundiced on the matter, not least because NAFTA is not, despite its name, about “free” trade. Inside the agreement are side deals on some resources and products, and a particularly complex arrangement when it comes to automobile manufacturing.
If we had a genuinely free trade agreement, you and I would be coming through borders with no concern about how much we were carrying with us. There would not be a limit, because we have free trade, right? Of course not. The agreement is to allow most producers of goods and services to conduct business openly across borders, not to allow individual citizens the same right.
Canada negotiated to maintain our supply management system for poultry, eggs and dairy products (and another for softwood lumber), which could be seen as a sop to our farmers, or as an incredibly foresighted way to protect our food security and encourage people to remain in the farming business, which traditionally is about as predictable as the price of oil.
So now, with NAFTA in the renegotiation process, is it any surprise that President Trump objects to that supply management system? Not that it probably costs more than the bounty of subsidies that American farmers reap, but simply because it’s easy for him to sell the concept as a commie-pinko experiment that is denying his own farmers opportunity.
Me? I am just fine with our pinko deal with the farmers, because I kind of prefer getting my food from sources close by, and from my side of the border when possible. But in a million years I am never going to support a trade agreement that allows foreign corporations to sue my country when they don’t get equal access to the Canadian market. I want my federal government to be able to make decisions that benefit our own companies and workers first. In an economic downturn, when governments typically roll out infrastructure programs to increase employment and spur the economy, I want the feds to be able to announce that the infrastructure bids are open to Canadians only. Period. Case closed. And I am just fine with the American and Mexican governments being able to do the same.
If we don’t want to bite the bullet and take an economic hit for becoming insular, what we should be doing is negotiating trade deals that work for all sides, but that don’t restrict each country from making decisions in their citizens’ own best interests. You want to export US wine into Canada? Fine. But if our own wineries can’t compete because our land and labour costs are higher, then we’re going to have to put a balancing tariff in place. You want to export bananas and oranges and pineapples into Canada? Have at it. We can’t grow the stuff so our own producers aren’t going to suffer.
And I think that Trump is dead right when he prefers two-nation agreements. Multiple-team trades in sports are rare occurrences, and for a good reason. They are incredibly complicated, and that’s the problem with pretty much everything governments get their hands on. They get so complicated that it’s easy to start goofing things up with side deals and horse trades. The lawyers do well at these negotiations, but the people tend to lose out in the long run. Trade deals might work well when all parties have a spirit of co-operation and understand that a little give and take usually balances out in the long run. But if those days ever existed, they are long gone. Hunkering down and protecting our own interests shouldn’t only be a Trump strategy.