Conference kaosws::canada

    The sections of both countries that are physically closer to each
    other will naturally benefit the most.  The Boston Globe published
    a series of articles in November about the border and how free trade
    will benefit or hurt people who live in those regions.  For example
    the free trade agreement will be as beneficial to New England as it will
    to Eastern Canada.  Mostly every product or service produced in
    both nations will be exempt from duties at the border.  But there
    are a few exceptions of which I don't know.  I don't think it will
    cover goods imported to North America and then shipped across the
    border. It will definitely help more than hurt especially ecomomically
    depressed areas.  It is my impression that the U.S. economy is a
    little healthier than the Canadian economy and if this is the case
    opening American markets to Canadian goods is definitely a shot
    in the arm for the Canadian ecomomy and vice versa.
    
    Bryan

Most of the provinces are in favour of the deal (at least their governments
are...).  The main exception is Ontario.  Ontario is primarily industrial;
at the risk of stereotyping, the economy of the other provinces rely
heavily on raw materials -- B.C. has pulp and paper, the prairies have oil,
wheat, and beef, and the maritimes have fishing. 

The raw material sector stands to do well by free trade; it will always be
cheaper to refine the product near the source than to ship it to market 
first.  This means that they stand a good chance of creating new jobs as they
expand their sales south of the border.  On the flip side, these resources
are not unlimited -- they can only expand to a point.

Ontario is hesitant about free trade because industry CAN move.  We live
just north of an economy geared to support a population of some 220 million.
The unions are less confrontational, the minimum wage is lower, the taxes 
may be less.  Suppose a Canadian business does well in this southern market, 
and decides to expand.  Why would they decide to stay in Canada? If we remove
the tax and duty incentives which make it more economical to manufacture
in Canada, why should an American firm expand into Canada?  If we open the 
floodgates, which way will the water flow?

MY personal opinion is that Canada is close enough to the American economy as
it is.  Our two countries are the world's biggest trading partners; it would
be unrealistic to expect (or want) that to change.  However, our economy 
suffers when the American economy suffers -- and because we're smaller, the
effects can be correspondingly more severe.  I would like to see the federal
government spend its free trade efforts on diversifying foreign trade.
Give Canadian businesses more assistance and incentives to trade with
Europe, or Japan, or (especially) the Third world.

Anyway, this free trade stuff won't last.  Mulroney won't get re-elected,
and NEITHER of the opposition parties is in favor of the deal.  Also, if
Ontario (or any province) doesn't want it, the province can sabotage it.
Duties, taxes, and tariffs can be imposed at the provincial level. This
is a constitutional right, and the feds can't do anything about it.

Anyways, this has been my three cents worth.

Cheers,

Ian S.

    A lot of Canadians would arque that the free trade agreement would
    be good for both the U.S.A. and Canada in the short term (5 to 15
    years). There would be some industries hurt by the agreement but
    most would benefit from increased markets.
    
    There is however an emotional factor that affects Canadians....and
    that's fear. Canadians fear their economy may become even more
    dominated by the USA to the point that Canada would be an American
    branch plant. There is an old saying that if the US sneezes, Canada
    catches cold. Farmers have learned to diversify their crops and
    not to depend on just one...recall the Irish potato blight. Canadians
    fear that linking our enconomy to Americas so closely could also
    lead to a blight if it has trouble.
    
    Canadians fear also that free trade could lead to our culture being
    even more dominated by the American Market. We have a very small
    film and music industry that in the last 10 years has grown stronger
    due to "canadian content" regulations imposed on TV and radio stations
    (ie. 30% of content must be Canadian)
    
    These fears however do not make Canadians Anti-American.....just
    pro-Canadian. 
    
    
    Regards Eh!
    Brian
    
    

Here's why I think that the free(er) trade deal sucks -

1. Mulroney never campaigned for free trade.  In fact, when he was running 
for the leadership of the party, he actively spoke against free trade.  He 
has only switched because it appeared that free trade would help him in the 
polls.  Mulroney may have one of the largest mahjorities in Canadian history, 
but he doesn't have a mandate to negotiate free trade.

2. The free trade deal was very nearly dead until Mulroney sent Wilson (the 
finance minister) to bail out Pat Carney.  They cooked up a deal at the last 
minute that we have no reason to believe did anything for Canada.  I'd like 
to know what Canada had to give up to "get a deal".

3.  The government couldn't provide the oppositon parties or the public with 
details on the agreement for many weeks.  Nobody really new what the deal was,
but we (the provinces and the Canadian public) were being asked to support it.

4.  While finalizing the wording of the agreement, severe problems developed 
which also nearly scrapped the deal.  Who knows what Canada gave up that time.

5.  Nobody really knows yet how the agreement will affect the Canadian 
governement's ability to help depressed areas of Canada.  Mulroney claims 
that he is free to subsidize where he wants, but there are just as many 
free trade critics who claim that government subsidies are a thing of the 
past (personally I don't like subsidies, but it is more important to me to 
determine our own actions).

6.  Throughout the free trade talks, the US repeatedly nailed Canada for 
"unfair trade practices".  I am amazed that a country that we are 
negotitating a trade deal with also saw fit to levy additional duties on 
lumber, potash and shakes and shingles.  What is truly amazing though is that 
the Mulroney government knuckled under and agreed to impose taxes (export 
taxes) on this side of the border, and also agreed that the taxes would not be 
spent to help the industry they were collected from.

7.  So many exemptions were agreed to that the importance of the free trade 
real is overstated.  Most of the major industries were able to lobby for 
exempt status - for example the beer industry is not included.

8.  In my opinion, we gave up far too much in the area of energy.  We have 
gauranteed the US "unfettered" access to our energy.  I don't know the exact 
definition of unfettered but, from the discussions I've heard in the media, we 
have given up a significant amount of sovereignty in this area.


I am basically in favour of free trade, but not the way this agreement was 
arrived at and what it appears to cost Canada.  I would also hate to be seen 
as anti-American, so I will also say that I can't understand how the Canadian 
goverment can tell the US we want a free trade deal and a closer economic 
relationship, and then set out to buy billions of dollars worth of nuclear 
submarines from ENGLAND or FRANCE.  This is crazy -- if we want to trade with 
the US, we should have bought subs from them.  The really funny part is that 
if Canada buys subs from England, the US has to approve the deal because the 
English subs are built on US technology.  It would be pretty humourous if the 
US said "NO!".

Garry Lockyer

    Interesting replies.  Sounds like this agreement is a bit
    controversial, to say the least!
    
    RE .2- The idea of more trade with Europe and Japan is not very
    realistic.  I say this because Japan, and the European countries,
    are very nationalistic and they import very little.  To them, free
    trade is a one way street; buy all you want, but don't try to SELL 
    them anything.  What makes you think they will change for Canada? 
    
    RE .4- As for sounding anti-American, I've noticed more of that
    sort of sentiment during my recent visits to Canada.  It's beyond
    me what the U.S. has done to deserve this.  Especially from Canada
    of all places!  
    
    Thanks,
    Denis  
    

re. .5

	Some of the anti-American sentiment may be due to the fact that the 
Reagan Administration doesn't seem to be concerned over environmental issues 
such as acid rain, to cite an example. Canadians also don't like the idea of 
large American corporations using up our Canadian resources. 
	Canadian farmers have been hit hard by the subsidy wars that the 
Americans are having with the European grain producers. Our federal and 
provincial governments cannot even think of matching American subsidies. Then 
there's the softwood lumber dispute. There's also been lots of disputes over our
unemployment insurance benefits being considered as a subsidy in the fishing 
industry.
	I guess it all boils down to Canadians afraid of losing their identity
and the Americans being perceived as the threat to our sovereignty and way of 
life. Many Americans, if not the majority, have a somewhat distorted view of 
Canada which Canadians pick up on and in some cases get offended by. I call it 
the "Igloo Syndrome" and I must confess, it does bother me from time to time.
	In spite of the causes of what might be perceived as anti-American 
sentiment, I feel that this free-trade agreement is a good one and will help 
our economy greatly. I'm not worried about us becoming the 51st state, we've 
lasted this long and I think it'll take more than a commercial trade agreement
to change what makes Canada Canadian.

Glenn

    Re: .5,.6
    
    	It is certainly becoming increasingly difficult to 'turn the
    other cheek' with American intransigence on a number of bilateral
    subjects, i.e. acid rain, natural resources. But lately, the most
    galling has been the American (Schultz's) response to Canada's
    Arctic sovereignty.
    
    	Although the US of A arm-twisted the Mexican government into
    an acid rain agreement because the Mexicans were the polluters,
    they have been excessively complacent with us when they are the
    polluters - not quite even-handed treatment.
    
    	Now Schultz has stated (11 Jan. 1988) that the US does 
    *NOT* recognize Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago,
    they will *advise* Canada whenever they wish to trespass through
    our waters.  Granted, it is ludicrous for us to expend vast sums
    of money to patrol such an immense area in order to insure that
    trespassers are identified and escorted through our territory, 
    but that doesn't relinquish sovereignty.  We shouln't be coerced
    into adopting the 'US gunboat mentality', "if you can't defend,
    you can't keep it".
    
    	We share this continent with the US and Mexico, but we are 
    distinct in nature, culture, history and politics.  Fortunately,
    we have long ago stopped warring with each other and have now
    become the world's closest trading partners, but I believe we  
    are taken for granted as a nation and to the cleaners as a 
    business partner.
    
    	Maybe it's true that Americans are like suppositories - with
    friends like them, who needs enemas. ;-)
    
    Pat (pro-Canadian, not anti-American)

    r�: .-1:
    
>            	Now Schultz has stated (11 Jan. 1988) that the US does 
>    *NOT* recognize Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago,
>    they will *advise* Canada whenever they wish to trespass through
>    our waters.  Granted, it is ludicrous for us to expend vast sums
>    of money to patrol such an immense area in order to insure that
>    trespassers are identified and escorted through our territory, 
>    but that doesn't relinquish sovereignty.  We shouln't be coerced
>    into adopting the 'US gunboat mentality', "if you can't defend,
>    you can't keep it".
    
    What ????
    
    - Surely you can see that this is a step in the right direction?
    last time, they just went merrily on their way through the area.
    Now the US *is* recognising Canadian claims to the area, by signing
    such a treaty (even if they *say* that they do not recognise
    soveriegnty over the area).
    
    - Nobody has adopted a gunboat mentality here, as far as I can see.
    The U.S. has not landed on the Arctic Archipelago, does not claim
    it, and has not settled there (they're no fools). No shots have
    been fired, no one is attacking, therefore no one is defending,
    with or without gunboats. Many waterways in the world are "trespassed",
    but one can scarcely call this an act of aggression, by any stretch
    of the imagination.
    
    I do not believe we are taken for granted as a nation; why do you
    think this agreement was signed? Nor are we taken to the cleaners
    as a business partner; why do you think there's a free trade deal?
    
    Now, let's take a look at this from the US national security viewpoint:
    Canada does not patrol its Arctic seaways. The US, constantly vigilant
    (to put it *very* kindly) against (real or imagined) Soviet incursions
    onto our continent, would like to send a signal to the Russkys...
    need I say more? I must say that I for one prefer the US to patrol
    Canada's arctic seaways than the alternatives I've just alluded to.
    
    Whenever I go to the US, the people that I meet are super-friendly,
    polite, caring, and understanding. I like to show the same sentiments
    to them (or any other visitors to Canada). Enough of this heavy-handed
    treatment of our friends and neighbours, let's leave the paranoia
    for those with mental diseases!
    
    Desmond.
    (who is not looking over his shoulder for foriegners attacking at
    all times)

Great discussion, let's keep this going.

One of the reasons that Canada need not fear a free trade deal is the 
fact that we are running a surplus in many of the important 
manufacturing industries.  For example, the Auto Pact (which was signed 
in the 1960's, allowing free trade in cars and car parts) is NOT 
responsible for the huge trade surplus in the automotive sector.  Better 
quality and higher productivity have made the Canadian plants more 
competitive than sister plants across the border.  This surplus has been 
in the billions of dollars for several years now.

One of the anti-deal arguements revolves around loss of control over our 
energy resources in times of crisis.  Ask Alberta or Quebec if this will 
hurt them.  Ontario was living off subsidised energy for years and the 
prospect of having to pay competitive rates scares them.  No other 
province will object to this part of the deal.

The manner in which the government handled the negotiations has also 
been severely critisized, perhaps with reason.  But to claim that 
because it is a bad deal because it was reached at the last minute is 
merely suspicion without cause.  I do not believe that our chief 
negotiator (who also negotiated the Auto Pact which has been extremely 
successful), seven provincial governments, and the vast majority of 
Canadian businessmen are incorrect in their assessment of this deal.  

As for the opposition to the deal, we have Canadian nationalists (who
still love Pierre Trudeau and the National Energy Program), unions (who
want to protect their power from American unions and/or rival Canadian 
unions), the governments of Ontario (smallest gain from deal), Manitoba
(still fuming about the F-18 contract), and P.E.I.   The two oposition 
parties first disliked the concept of free trade, now they say free 
trade would be okay, but this deal is wrong.  All of the above are 
looking out for their own interests, and the interests of Canada are of 
no concern (except the nationalists, but they're out in left field 
anyway).

	What really bugs me about the whole free trade issue is that the 
opposition to it is always politically motivated. John Turner ( the leader of
the contradiction ) is against the deal and says when they get in, they'll 
tear the deal up! Now there's a rational approach if I ever heard one. If he
does get in ( God forbid, puleeeease ) he won't be quite as vocal about the deal
as he is now and I doubt if he would just tear it up like that in the faces of 
his American counterparts. Free Trade isn't the issue with him, getting elected 
is what it's all about. He's scaring Canadians into voting Liberal in the next 
election because, let's face it, on his own merits he doesn't stand a chance. 
But by kicking up a real big fuss in the house of commons and contradicting 
everything that the government says he figures the Liberals will win the next 
election. How can Bourassa, a Liberal who leans to the left at the best of 
times, be for the deal and John Turner, who is a little right of center, be so 
adamantly against the deal. This to me is a prime example of political 
opportunism and I find it insulting. Bourassa sees his opportunity to sell 
Quebec's energy and other resources, creating lots of jobs and spurring on 
economic growth in what would otherwise become economically depressed areas 
making him look real good in the eyes of Quebec voters. Ideology doesn't even 
enter into it where these two characters are concerned.
	I would have had some respected John Turner if he had cautioned the 
government, warned them of ramifications regarding certain issues and been 
rational about it. Instead, his eyes bulge out and his face turns red and he 
says he's going tear the deal up, GIVE ME A BREAK JOHNNY BABY! 
	The real sad thing is, if the Liberals were in power now and tabling a 
free trade agreement, the Conservatives would be doing the exact same thing as 
the Liberals are now. That's politics for you!

	Glenn ( Who very often gets mad at politicians and yells at the T.V. but
is only frustrated because John Turner can't hear him!) ;-)

  An article by John Fraser for 'Saturday Night', February 1988



		YANKEE PLOTS AND ATWOOD'S THOUGHTS

				by

			   John Fraser


	The debate over a free-tade deal with the United States appears 
to be reviving that feisty old emotion, righteous indignation.  People
are getting very, very angry.  Some have even stopped talking to each other.
Not normally thought of as useful in debates on Canadian policy these days,
the anger contrasts curiously with the familiar lobotomized shrug that greets
contemporary Canadian issues deemed too big and complicated to worry about.

	Although none of this should be exaggerated, there nevertheless does
seem to be a refreshing asperity in the air as one goes about the simple tasks
of the day.  Take for example a perfectly straightforward telephone call to
Margaret Atwood to see if the eminently edible lady would care to participate
in the great revival of magazine fiction set to take off within these pages
as soon as possible:

	"When your current work is finished in the spring," I said, "I hope
we can count on you."
	"What did you say your views on this trade deal were?" Atwood asked
sweetly. "I trust they aren't the same as your boss's."
	"Clearly the new section won't work unless we have the right balance
of offerings from our best writers and the best of our new writers."
	"You do realize what it all comes down to, don't you?  You saw what
[Canadian free-trade negotiator Simon] Reisman	said?  I am a fascit now.
Because I am against this deal, Simon Reisman has said I can now officially
be described as a fascist.  Not very pretty."
	"Well, if we start the new fiction section in May or June, do you
think you could oblige ...?"
	"OBLIGE!  I won't feel obliged to do anything after our government
has sold us down the river.  The reason I won't call it 'free trade' is that
there's nothing free for us in it.  Why don't we convert the Parliament 
Buildings into an up-market hotel - the Ch�teau Parliament?  That way at least
somebody will make some money on it."
	"So I'll be in touch in June then, shall I?"
	"If I'm still here.  There won't be much point after this deal goes
through, will there?"

	Amid the old-world charm of Charles Ritchie's Ottawa apartment, 
glowing with the patina of bonhomie and experience, the debate takes on a 
different tone - more even-handed, though no less emphatic.  It was a perfect
time to strike.  The old boy had finished his latest volume of memoirs and
the book hustle had just ended:

	"I thought, sir, some vignettes or miniature portraits might fit in
rather well to the magazine."
	"Quite right," said Ritchie, "I couldn't agree more.  I am simply
going to opt out of the free-trade nonsense altogether.  Couldn't make any
sense of it anyway."
	"Particularly foreign statesmen, sir.  With your breadth of experience
as an ambassador in so many places...."
	"Tea, dear boy, more tea?  I take your point, of course, but you see
I finally realized that both sides were saying the same thing and that's when
I decided I could quit the debate with a clear conscience.  The people for 
free trade tell you that if we don't sign up we will remain hewers of wood
and drawers of water forever, while the people against free trade insist
that the Americans only want us in the deal as hewers of wood and drawers
of water."
	"So I can expect to hear from you soon, sir, can I?"
	"That's it exactly, but you write it up."

	And had I at any time during the past two months been able to get hold
of the incomparable Ray Guy somewhere, anywhere, in Newfoundland to tell him
that his new meal ticket had moved into the editor's chair at 'Saturday Night',
I am quite sure his impeccable sense of irony and historical inevitability
would have pushed him towards the free-trade camp somewhat along the following
lines:

	"Ray!  I'm desparate for a piece on Peckford.  I'm told he's gone right
over the top."
	"Yes, me son, I hear you plain.  It's all a tremendous vindication for
the Crosbie clan."
	"No, no.  We'll leave Crosbie for the Ottawa columnist.  What I want
from you is...."
	"It was Mr. Ches, you know, who said it first in '48 during the 
Confederation dust-up.  'Why in the name of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph' - well,
Mr. Ches was a Methodist but you get me gist - 'why in the name of Charles
Bejeezuz Wesley are we sucking up to those stuck-up miseries in Canada when
the whole of the Greater United States lies plump, clucking, and ready for
the plucking?'"
	"...the Peckford piece.  You'll do it?"
	"He was a man of vision and history was Mr. Ches.  Saw the whole 
picture on free trade forty years ago.  A prophet ignored!  And never forget
he was The Honourable John's daddy.  Think about that for vindication."

	There is nothing in despair in all this.  The unfamiliar ire and 
enthusiaism may yet be stamped out thanks to the impeccable behaviour of the
prime minister, who is pushing the deal but declines to defend it with vigour
except at the most primitive level, and against the premier of Ontario, 
who is against it but would prefer quietly to tend to his own garden.

	Within the dismal confines established by these reticent gentlemen,
the real worth of Canadian civility is amply exposed as we ponder our little
plunge into economic and social history. �

    HI,
    
    PERSONALLY I THINK MULRONEY HAS JUST HELPED TO MAKE CANADA THE 51ST
    STATE OF THE UNION.
    
    TED :-)

    What about the United States of Europe?

    Aren't the same types of trade pressures being felt everywhere?

    And Ted, why all the shouting? 8^)

    Glenn

>    What about the United States of Europe?
>
>    Aren't the same types of trade pressures being felt everywhere?

	Yup, the french are attacking our lorry drivers, burning our lamb,
	and the French police stand idly by!

	Heather

	re .14

>	and the French police stand idly by!

	Ah yes, idleness in state enterprises....

	Maybe this could be solved by privatizing the gendarmerie.

	Tony

    The gendam's do not always stand by !!!

    Take  the  case  last week of a group of VERY aggressive nurses, the 
    Gendam's  opened  up  on them with tear gas and water cannon's. This 
    police force are not to be messed with! What a bunch of #$$%^%^&%&.

    The  EC  started  as a `common market', but now has aspirations of a 
    more  `federal'  (ie social union). Which I feel will fail. A common 
    market,  solely  based  on trade, increases trade and aid's business 
    for all concerned.

    I  think  the North American Free Trade Agreement, will benefit all. 
    Hopefully in time the other central American country's will join in, 
    at  first people in the Canada and the US will see this as a threat, 
    but in time the benefits will become clear.

    As  to  becoming the 51st state ect... the EC has the same situation 
    with  one  VERY  dominant  force - Germany. But what does it matter, 
    Germany  would  still  dominant what happens in Europe even if there 
    was no EC.

    				Mark 
    					(A brit in Germany, but liking Canada)