We should revert to use of global trade rules Linda McQuaig Toronto Star August 28 2005
It's often noted that the United States is so big and powerful it barely notices Canada. Indeed, the average U.S. citizen probably couldn't locate Canada on a map of North America (and if he could, he wouldn't bother to).
This sense of Canada's insignificance, drummed into us constantly by our media commentators, has helped fuel the mythology that we scored a great coup back in 1988 when we signed the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S.
In fact, that deal - and the subsequent North American Free Trade Agreement - was more a coup for Washington than Ottawa.
Contrary to mythology, Washington was keen to sign free-trade deals with Canada for lots of reasons, including winning guaranteed access to our energy, which they got.
But the Americans are tough negotiators, and they weren't willing to give us much in return.
The one thing Canada really wanted was a common set of rules that would ensure Canadian goods access to the U.S. market, and the Mulroney government promised not to sign any deal without this.
But Washington never had any intention of agreeing to this, although its negotiators teasingly hinted from time to time that they were considering it.
After years of exasperating negotiations, the Mulroney government, desperate for a deal, signed anyway.
The utter failure of NAFTA to guarantee us access to the U.S. market has long been clear, but is now undeniable. Despite a unanimous pro-Canada ruling earlier this month by a NAFTA panel, Washington simply refuses to remove punishing duties on our lumber.
This has led to much hand-wringing and even calls for retaliation. Instead, we should simply bow out of NAFTA, which we can do with six months' notice.
We'd continue to trade with the Americans but we'd revert to our old way of trading with them - under the rules of the World Trade Organization, a global trade treaty formerly known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
This was the basis of our successful trading relationship with the U.S. for almost 40 years, until we were naïve enough in the 1980s to think we could do better negotiating a one-on-one deal with Washington.
Washington was delighted, knowing it would have more leverage facing one country (and a relatively small one at that) than facing a whole array of nations.
It easily tossed us around on the mat.
NAFTA has done much to erode our sovereignty, denying us control over our own energy resources, creating a wide-ranging set of rights for corporations, and limiting our power to protect the environment and shape public programs.
Rather than rant and rave and retaliate, we should finally acknowledge that we do better when we negotiate with the Americans with a host of other nations on our side.
There was a reason that the U.S. Congress quickly and eagerly approved the one-on-one deal Washington signed with Canada - and it wasn't because U.S. congressmen have a soft spot for Canadians.
Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.
------------------------
NAFTA and FTA has been beneficial to Canada Rondi Adamson Toronto Star August 28 2005
The ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the United States is not sufficient reason to scrap NAFTA and FTA. As a pro-American Canadian - and I am in a minority, I fear - I find Washington's disregard for the Extraordinary Challenge Committee's ultimate ruling on the softwood lumber tariffs particularly disturbing. What better way to give Canadian nationalists fuel for their fires?
Even pro-American architects of the original agreement - among them, Simon Reisman and Allan Gotlieb - expressed dismay that NAFTA was being put at risk. But we must keep things in perspective and remember that softwood represents only a small percentage of Canadian exports to the U.S. Canada would be shooting itself in the foot to react by abrogating its free trade agreements, as they are highly beneficial and have led to economic growth and increased prosperity at home. Without them, there would be any number of tariffs imposed on any number of items.
According to International Trade Canada, "Since NAFTA came into force, the Canadian economy has grown by an average of 3.6 per cent annually, keeping Canada in the lead among the G7 countries." Canadian productivity has risen by nearly 25 per cent since free trade's inception.
As part of the world's largest trade bloc, we are a part of a free trade area that represents a third of the world's gross domestic product and our exports to the U.S. and Mexico have grown in value by more than 100 per cent. Since NAFTA, Canadian exports to the U.S. have nearly tripled.
And we registered an all-time high merchandise trade surplus with the U.S. last year. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, "Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry is largely export oriented and has benefited from the increased access to U.S. and Mexican markets." Since 1994, our agricultural exports to the U.S. and Mexico have increased by 95 per cent.
And there is much more that could be added to the "pro" column for NAFTA and FTA. Which is not to say there should not be a response to the American decision. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal editorialized in our favour, in large part, regarding lumber tariffs, and suggested George Bush should have used the committee's ruling "as a graceful exit" from the tariffs.
A useful retaliation, not just chest-thumping and petulance, is in order.
Slapping tariffs on U.S. products would, in turn, only increase the cost of items purchased by Canadians. Limiting energy exports would be about as clever an idea as a trade war. A good start would be for Canada's Prime Minister to show some concern beyond making bold statements to Canadian media.
International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said that Paul Martin would talk to George Bush about the matter, "sooner, rather than later." Now there's passion. I would suggest sooner. Or even now.
There are a number of paths to travel here, starting with trying to reach a settlement. But doing away with open access to the world's largest market would be travelling the wrong path.
Rondi Adamson is a Toronto writer whose work has been published in the Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal Europe and USA Today.