U.S. Congress: no soft spot for Canadians

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.

Comments